Achievements of the Republic

[The Augusta]

I would like to throw something into the ring here that will hopefully help to focus everyone's mind and knowledge. I love reading everyone's posts, and while not always agreeing with everyone's point of view, each post can only enrich our knowledge. I wish to start a topic that can bring forth a multitude of ideas, debates and evaluations, and will hopefully have some life in it.

 

My question is: What do you think the Romans of the Republic saw as the most important principle(s) of good government, and how successful do you think they were in achieving these aims. For the purposes of the discussion, the focus does need to be on what the Romans themselves considered to be the most important principle(s), but when evaluating how well they achieved it, we can use both ancient and modern value systems (well, it may be impossible not to).

 

The floor is yours, citizens.

[phil25]

In brief, I don't have much time at the moment, the republic achieved and established almost everything that Rome achieved and established - ALL the principles on which the empire was founded.

 

But a government founded on what was satisfactory and practical for a City, was not suitable for an empire. It foundered, and the authority of a single mind was found essential to maintain (so far as that was possible) what had been achieved by the republic.

 

But I am increasingly attracted to the idea that Rome's fall began with Actium. Almost nothing new was accomplished after that event, apart from stability, which was essential, but related to the status quo, not to anything incremental. Simplistic, I know, but a conclusion I find inescapable logically.

 

But that doesn't mean I believe the republic could have survived, or should have been restored. Such thoughts are nonsense IMHO. It was a dead duck, but with it died all that was progressive and energetic in Rome.

 

(Please don't hold me to any of that, but it is a rough road-map to my thrust of mind nowadays.)

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

In brief, I don't have much time at the moment, the republic achieved and established almost everything that Rome achieved and established - ALL the principles on which the empire was founded.

 

But a government founded on what was satisfactory and practical for a City, was not suitable for an empire. It foundered, and the authority of a single mind was found essential to maintain (so far as that was possible) what had been achieved by the republic.

 

But I am increasingly attracted to the idea that Rome's fall began with Actium. Almost nothing new was accomplished after that event, apart from stability, which was essential, but related to the status quo, not to anything incremental. Simplistic, I know, but a conclusion I find inescapable logically.

 

But that doesn't mean I believe the republic could have survived, or should have been restored. Such thoughts are nonsense IMHO. It was a dead duck, but with it died all that was progressive and energetic in Rome.

 

(Please don't hold me to any of that, but it is a rough road-map to my thrust of mind nowadays.)

 

Phil

 

 

An interesting reply, Phil, but it doesn't answer my question. (I appreciate this is a vast topic and you may have little time) You have not said in your post what you believe the Romans felt to be the most important principles. If we can take some political catchwords - virtus, pietas etc., and there are more... This is the sort of thing I mean.

[Gaius Octavius]

The Law? Theoretically, all citizens of Rome had to act within the bounds of written law and were protected by it. I am certain that the modern term 'stare decisis' applied then. For non-citizens, in their territories they had the same reciprocal relationship according to their laws which were effectively sanctioned by Rome. The governor of a province could be prosecuted for alleged crimes after his term of office expired. Business contracts could be enforced. Slavery was regulated. Theoretically, a slave could not be sexually abused and could buy his freedom.

 

This may be one of the reasons why Hannibal did not conquer Italy.

 

I believe that in other nations, the law was subject to the whims of the ruler.

[CiceroD]

It goes without saying that modern democracies recieved their inspiration from the Republic.

 

And based upon the responses from "The Eternal Republic" and the plots of Gladiator and I Claudius there is a nearly universal deep fondness for SPQR.

 

I entirely support Gaius Octavius.

 

But arent we overlooking the more practical achievements of the Republic?

 

"The Principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the Republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied with preserving those dominions" Edward Gibbon.

 

The Roman Triumph, as an institution, drove these men to conquer the world!

And this institution could only come about in such a government.

Its no coincidence that upon the rise of Augustus generals not of the Imperial family were only given Triumphal Ornaments.

 

PS by the way good avatar Augusta I love that miniseries too!

[phil25]

Augusta - I don't think I have anything to add.

 

I reject all the romantic guff about democracies today looking back to the republic - the republic was not "democratic in any way we would recognise. Classically educated statesmen of a few centuries ago created a benign idea that is not solidly based. The republic was an oligarchy, with some monarchical traits (the consuls) and the slightest veneer of consultation with the mob. The assemblies and voting system were totally rigged.

 

But the energy that was caught and directed into expansion, the will to survive when facing the challenge of carthage, the creation of a cursus whereby men could gain experience in office and of administration, at various levels then put that into practice as generals or governors, largely worked well.

 

Much of this was continued and even built into the "system" under the principiate and empire.

 

The great problems for the republic that it never solved, were how to control successful generals and their troops; and how to attain consistency of approach in governing an empire larger than a city-state. One-man rule was a patch which helped with the issue of the generals (they were either members of the imperial family or denied glory); and the triumvirs gave priority to the land and resettlement issues for their troops. Consistency and a bureaucracy of freedmen came with one-man rule too. But generals occupied the throne under Augustus, Tiberius, Galba, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan to name but a few. And Tacitus specifically asserts that the secret of empire was the will of the legions - so no change there then.

 

To conlude, it was the republican system, modified which was its great achievement, but it was deeply flawed. the cure may have been worse than the disease, but it was unavoidable.

 

I suspect that this still doesn't give you what you want.

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

Augusta - I don't think I have anything to add.

 

I reject all the romantic guff about democracies today looking back to the republic - the republic was not "democratic in any way we would recognise. Classically educated statesmen of a few centuries ago created a benign idea that is not solidly based. The republic was an oligarchy, with some monarchical traits (the consuls) and the slightest veneer of consultation with the mob. The assemblies and voting system were totally rigged.

 

I could not agree with you more. If we are to put it in simple terms, Rome experienced three regime changes: monarchy to oligarchy, and then oligarchy to monarchy. These changes were by no means as outsized as one might think

[M. Porcius Cato]

I reject all the romantic guff about democracies today looking back to the republic

 

I wonder if you might care to define any of these terms--"democracy", "republic", "oligarchy", "monarchy"--that you so haphazardly toss around. If a democracy is direct rule by the majority of the citizens, I know of no modern democracies at all. If there's any guff out there, it's the notion that modern republics are democracies.

 

Speaking at least for the US, whose constiution was written by classicists (like Madison) and debated hotly in the press by authors who signed their letters "Cato" and "Caesar"--our republic was very consciously inspired by the Roman system, and the US was absolutely not designed to be a democracy, which was considered a failed system by the framers of the constitution. For example, in the original US system, voters directly elected Representatives to the House, and they voted only indirectly for President via Electors; indeed, Senators were non-elected positions, appointed instead by state legislatures. There is not now or has there ever been a mechanism for a national referendum--which would be the closest thing to direct democracy.

 

Moreover, under the simple-minded division "democracy"/"oligarchy"/"monarchy", it would be impossible to classify either the US system or the Roman one. Which is why Polybius said that the Roman system was another system entirely. The Roman system (like the US) is a "mixed" system with democratic, oligarchic, and monarchical elements.

 

Cynics on this board and elsewhere would like to pretend that the democratic element in the Roman system was purely illusory. IMO, this is simply a convenient excuse for justifying one's favorite monarch (like Caesar or Augustus) while maintaining (implausibly) that one isn't really a fan of dictatorship.

 

In fact the democratic element in Rome was very real--and not always healthy either. The Roman people wanted land--and the aristocrats gave it to them in one piece of agrarian legislation after another. The Roman people loved to share in the spoils of war--and the aristocrats gave it to them. The Roman people were jealous of sharing power with non-Romans and fervently opposed voting rights for the Italian allies--and for far too long the aristocrats gave it to them. Above all, the Roman people loved to give meaning to their little lives by strutting around as second-hand conquerors of the Mediterranean--and the aristocrats gave it to them, piece by bloody piece, until the Mediterranean was bled dry for the glory of the Roman PEOPLE.

 

Now there's a simple way to see what influence the people really had--and that's to take it away from them. Which is exactly what the principate did--and look at the consequences: no record of meaningful agrarian reform, enfranchisement ultimately extended throughout the Roman world, and a rate of expansion that halted to a crawl. During the republic, these three trends would have been impossible--the people would have not allowed it, and they did not allow it as long they had some power.

 

BTW, while you're tossing around insults against those who believe that there was a real democratic element to the republic (for good or ill), I'd better reveal my source here. Almost my entire argument above is derived from the published lectures of Fergus Millar, who is probably the world's most respected ancient historian. Like any authority, he could be wrong, but his position at least the deserves some respect from a board of pure amateurs.

[spittle]

They have a form of direct democracy in Switzerland where referendums are held on many issues but, unlike ancient Athens with its tiny franchise (very 'undemocratic' by our standards) it is simply unpracticle to have EVERYONE vote on EVERYTHING.

 

Example. If a person wishes to become a Swiss citizen the entire population of the area the potential citizen has been living get to vote on his/her acceptance. the Sunday Times article I read some years ago said it was little more than standardised system of prejudice and the only foreigners ever accepted by majority vote were professionals from just over the border in North Italy (my recollection of the article is vague but I assume it dealt with a canton next to Italy).

 

Romes system actually had more in common with the UK (a patchwork of precedence and tradition) than the USA (written constitution).

 

In short the republic WAS a democracy. But one with a small franchise of actual power. One could argue that, despite the vast majority of the west having the right to vote, little has changed and the illusion of power (voting) simply allows the real power to operate under guise of popular choice.

 

As for The Augusta's (Hi, Gail) question, and I am not sure this is what she's actually asking but I'll contribute and hope for the best, the best thing the Romans respected was a type of Samurai-like self control.

Cicero was no fan of the games but he had huge respect for the fearless manner in which the gladiators accepted their deaths. He, in fact, managed to overcome his lifelong fear and bare his throat in similar fashion when caught by the agents of Mark Antony.

 

The honourable suicides of the defeated was another form of this attitude/value system. To me it is far more Japanese than European and I respect it more than the religious certainty that suicide is wrong.

Edited November 12, 2006 by spittle

[M. Porcius Cato]

Romes system actually had more in common with the UK (a patchwork of precedence and tradition) than the USA (written constitution).

Yes, with respect to the constitution, you're correct. But political parties play a very different role in the US and UK, and the role of political party in Rome was more like that of the US system.

 

In short the republic WAS a democracy. But one with a small franchise of actual power.

 

With that proviso, couldn't you argue that Soviet Russia--a nation that had intra-Party elections--was a democracy? It seems to me that your proviso undercuts the whole distinction between democracy, oligarchy, and 'mixed' (i.e., republican systems).

 

Moreover, I think there's an important ingredient missing from the whole taxonomy, and those are the bills that limit what the state may and may not do to its citizens. For example, the lex Porcia (sponsored by Cato the Elder) forbade the state from flogging citizens without trial; the Magna Carta set limits on the what the king could and could not do to his nobles; the US Bill of Rights sets limits on what Congress may and may not authorize. These sorts of restrictions on state power are agnostic about the body over which they supervene--magistrate, king, or assembly--but they all share the characteristic of guaranteeing certain individual rights. It could very well be that these sorts of limits on state power were far more important than Polybius recognized in explaining the rise of Rome, which was the original purpose of his analysis of the Roman constitution.

[phil25]

Of course, Russia CLAIMED to be a democracy, MPC - in part because it was a supposedly "peoples' republic, but also because it wanted to LOOK like the equivalent of the modern republic in post French Revolutionary style. In short it was "contrived". It was NEVER a democracy in practice - Leninism could never have allowed it.

 

In the world today, in my view we have two sorts of democracy - and I should add here that I am no fan of democracy, I prefer oligarchies. the two sorts are:

 

a) those which have or are evolving from another system and adapt or add to their civil strustures to allow greater popular participation (the UK is an example which has evolved over severl hundred years and continues to do so;

 

those that have created political systems on a "sheet of white paper" (the US is the prime example) following some chosen "model" of democractic practice.

 

It is a matter for debate how far either is a true or actual democracy, or even if real democracy is achieveable or desirable (my personal answer to both is that they are not).

 

Rome was a republic, but never in my view a democracy - it got rid of its kings, but not the institutions or the concepts (the rex sacrorum remained, as did the consuls who retained many of the attributes and powers of kingship, simply divided and made annual. Eventually, this was seen as unworkable, and kingship was restored, while retaining many of the trappings of a republic.

 

My ramblings, Augusta, have finally clarified for me the essential quality that i see as the great achievement of the republic - PRAGMATISM.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Of course, Russia CLAIMED to be a democracy, MPC - in part because it was a supposedly "peoples' republic, but also because it wanted to LOOK like the equivalent of the modern republic in post French Revolutionary style. In short it was "contrived". It was NEVER a democracy in practice - Leninism could never have allowed it.

 

Yes, of course, I agree that Soviet Russia was not a democracy--the point of my question was to identify the feature(s) that distinguished it from being a democracy.

 

Rome was a republic, but never in my view a democracy - it got rid of its kings, but not the institutions or the concepts (the rex sacrorum remained, as did the consuls who retained many of the attributes and powers of kingship, simply divided and made annual. Eventually, this was seen as unworkable, and kingship was restored, while retaining many of the trappings of a republic.

 

And I'd agree that Rome was never a democracy--however, what distinguished the republic from the principate if not the democratic elements of the republic (e.g., free electoral competition, free speech in the forum, the ability to bring private lawsuits against magistrates, etc)?

[phil25]

....what distinguished the republic from the principate if not the democratic elements of the republic (e.g., free electoral competition, free speech in the forum, the ability to bring private lawsuits against magistrates, etc)?

 

FREE electoral competion? For the rich maybe... hardly democractic, and the corruption was notorious.

 

FREE speech in the Forum - for a canting prat like Cicero maybe, but hardly for the uneducated. The "mob" seemed to be pretty hostile to "free" speech too under gang-leaders like Milo.

 

Procesutions? Vendetta maybe - but healthy freedom? pah!! Rigged juries and contrived actions.

 

You are a romantic Cato - and you look at the republic, IMHO, with rose tinted spectacles. It was no model of anything except itself - and it could not deal with the fault lines within its own structure. Nor could it transform itself into a workable form to govern an empire. Your comments relate to the surface, not the substance.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

I note that you have still failed to identify the elements that distinguished the republic from the principate and were responsible for the greater expansionism of the former. Millar's account (and that of Polybius) can deal with these facts. Tired cynicism about the republic -- which characteristically fails to cite any historical events or sources -- does not.

 

EDIT: And, yes, I admit to being a romantic.

Edited November 12, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[The Augusta]

I note that you have still failed to identify the elements that distinguished the republic from the principate and were responsible for the greater expansionism of the former. ... Tired cynicism about the republic -- which characteristically fails to cite any historical events or sources -- does not.

 

Now, this is exactly what I was looking for in the original post. I have posted this question in The Republic folder precisely to ask about the successes/failures of the Republic - not the Principate; however, all replies have been enlightening. And I am one of those people who sees merit in both forms of government, and although I am a great admirer of Augustus, I nevertheless believe that he made a very fundamental mistake in creating the Principate: he made its success dependent upon the personality of the individual Princeps. This may be naive of me, but it is a belief I have held for over 30 years. Augustus was capable of ruling well, but could not legislate for his successors doing likewise.

 

And, yes, I admit to being a romantic.

 

I think that many of us on here would admit to the same, Cato. I am certainly not ashamed of doing so. But that would form an entirely different discussion....

 

The only thing I am missing in this debate - and it is a point addressed so far only by Gaius Octavius and Spittle, is what the Romans themselves considered to be the most important principle(s) of good government. Gaius stated that in his opinion it was 'The Law'; Paul, that it was 'self-control'. I myself, IMHO, consider that 'libertas' was perhaps one of the foremost things in the Republican mind. But was there even one single principle, or many? Can we even arrive at a consensus? Were the principles different for different elements of society? Does anyone wish to elaborate on this?