Achievements of the Republic

[Gaius Octavius]

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.

----------------

In the interest of my education, please tell me where the aristocrats - the 'good' people, the 'better' people - got this 'privilege', this 'right' to 'give' anyone anything? Was what they gave theirs by some divine right or had they burgled it? Were these gifts of the better people to the dregs of the earth gratuitously granted without struggle by the unwashed trash?

----------------

 

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.

 

-----------------

Again, in the interests of my further education, would you please comment on the logical validity of the above argument?

-----------------

 

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.

------------------

Please help me, I missed the insult!

What leads you to believe that the position of Fergus Millar is not 'respected' by this board of pure amateurs?

Edited November 12, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Germanicus]

I would say Dignitas was one principle that pervaded every level of Republican society. It's persuit drove citizens do accomplish new things, think in new ways - in a way, the desire to have it for oneself and ones family also drove the republic toward the principate.

 

Side note - If the republic did not have "democratic elements" as Cato suggests - why did political figures spend so much on games for the masses, or on wholesale bribery, or introduce a grain dole ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

Again, I think the Roman view was best expressed to Polybius by his Roman hosts (the Scipionic circle) and repeated by Polybius in The Histories. Briefly, that the republic rose to dominate the Mediterranean due to the competition of the aristocrats for poltical offices that were decided by the people of Rome, who believed in Roman greatness and its favor by the gods. Polybius' argument, essentially, is the view that Fergus Millar has endorsed.

 

There were other explanations offered by the Romans, ones which Polybius did not affirm. For example, that the republic rose to greatness because of the moral superiority of the Romans; in this view, the Roman yeomen of yore valued thrift, austerity, severity, the sanctity of an oath, obedience to the law, dignitas, and so forth, and it was from these virtues that Rome became pre-eminent in power and majesty. Livy apparently clung to this view, and it was the source of his moral fables about ancient Rome (e.g., Horatius at the bridge holding off the Etruscans, "slaves of haughty tyrants who, careless of their own freedom, came to oppress the liberty of others"). There is also the standard Great Man explanation for the rise of the republic--namely, that Rome rose to greatness due to a long, thin line of Heroes, stretching back to Brutus and Poplicola and leading all the way up to Julius Caesar.

 

I think the Virtues Theory and the Great Man Theory are too simple: the men of Rome were probably no more moral or great than those of Greece, yet the Romans dominated all Hellas within a short span of time.

 

My own view is much closer to Polybius'. This view has a role for great men and moral values, but their impact on history is constrained by the political system itself. Under the republic, the competition between great men and mere dabblers tended to favor --over the long run-- those with military talent, legal ability, and the power to persuade, though only to the extent that the laws of the republic were actually upheld. In contrast, under the principate, great men (such as Agricola) were--as a matter of policy--subordinated to their political masters (and often moral and intellectual inferiors), whose latter power rested entirely on birth, adoption, and civil war rather than on political persuasion and military success.

[CiceroD]

Thank You Germanicus!

 

 

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

[spittle]

"Liberty was not equality"

 

It never was. One of the major facts of politics is that the more equality the less personal freedom.

 

Communist regimes revolve around equality (in theory! See Orwells Animal Farm). Whereas Capitalist regimes accept the obscenely wealthy and the starving under the same system.

 

Communism sounds SO good on paper! I think it fails to consider human nature. When the politicians are making four hour speaches the population longs for 'Levi's and the Beatles'. But, in places such as Calcutta, millions eke out an existance on the streets while the priviledged few wear jewelled sandals!

[CiceroD]

Did I ever say that liberty was equality?

[spittle]

"Thus the Romans valued their city which was in effect the center of Rome. Liberty was as important as air even though liberty was not equality. According to Antony Everitt"

 

From the post of yours (cicero d) that I replied to.

 

So Yes, you did say it. And i repeat that politics is a balancing act between LIBERTY and EQUALITY.

Edited November 14, 2006 by spittle

[CiceroD]

"Thus the Romans valued their city which was in effect the center of Rome. Liberty was as important as air even though liberty was not equality . According to Antony Everitt"

 

From the post of yours (cicero d) that I replied to.

 

So Yes, you did say it. And i repeat that politics is a balancing act between LIBERTY and EQUALITY.

 

not to be picky but this is what I said and you yourself quoted

liberty was not equality

equality was worked into the roman myth by neoclassisists

[Pantagathus]

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?

Interesting that both GO and Paul (in my interpretation) would touch on the 2 things that Polybius (6.47) saw as fundamental to a good constitution: Customs & Laws

 

[M. Porcius Cato]

Finishing out the Polybius ends in ellipses above:

 

... The principal authors of this change will be the masses, who at some moments will believe that they have a grievance against the greed of other members of society, and at others are made conceited by the flattery of those who aspire to office. By this stage they will have been roused to fury and their deliberations will be constantly swayed by passions, so that they will no longer consent to obey or even to be the equals of their leaders, but will demand everything or by far the greatest share for themselves. When this happens, the consitution will change its name to the one which sounds the most imposing of all, that of freedom and democracy, but its nature to that which is the worst of all, that is the rule of the mob.

 

This latter part is critical for understanding Polybius, who held that the aristocracy were not the "principal authors" for the decline of the state, but rather their competiton for the favor of the fickle and irrational mob. Agree or disagree, that was a very Roman view.

[Pantagathus]

This latter part is critical for understanding Polybius, who held that the aristocracy were not the "principal authors" for the decline of the state, but rather their competiton for the favor of the fickle and irrational mob. Agree or disagree, that was a very Roman view.

Indeed

[The Augusta]

This latter part is critical for understanding Polybius, who held that the aristocracy were not the "principal authors" for the decline of the state, but rather their competiton for the favor of the fickle and irrational mob. Agree or disagree, that was a very Roman view.

Indeed

 

And I will third it! However, I detect in the quotes of Polybius (cited by Pant) above some echoes of the fall of the Athenian democracy. That may be just me, of course, but the Romans themselves would have had the lesson of the Athenian 'experiment', which ultimately failed - for more reasons than a clamouring populace, I grant you.

 

But when we consider the Romans' own view of themselves I'm surprised no one has brought in dear old Cicero, who wrote a treaty about duty to the state and that a good Roman citizen should strive to serve the Republic - ambition was the birthright of the good citizen, providing it was used for the common good. And don't worry, Cato - you won't need to get out your net and trident to hurl at me, this time - for I personally agree with this principle, and do feel that the majority of politicians of the Republic upheld it. As the Republic gained more territories, however, obviously things became strained - and the wonderful discussion above has threshed these out very fully.

 

As always - thank you gentlemen.

Edited November 14, 2006 by The Augusta

[caldrail]

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.

 

Republican sentiments seem to be flavoured with an attitude that a man must serve Rome. To serve well invites reward. Now this is an ideal that the competitive nature of roman society found attractive, especially when Romans discovered the reward of military conquest. It also occurs in civilian life. Romans of good families are noticeably educated and guided toward a career in politics. It was expected that they worked toward becoming successful as opposed to being simply desirable for those of ambitious nature. Notice how often romans of poor ability strived to get into the fast lane even when common sense dictated they stay on the grass verge. Bear in mind that many of the avenues for success we enjoy were not considered desirable by republican romans. We might become business leaders or media celebrities, both of which would be frowned upon by your peers back then. Money and status were everything - politics provided an arena to achieve them. Was this a good system for government? Well... it certainly worked for centuries didn't it? But it did require strong government. When the senate weakened then we see the system stagnating and open to opportunism, which in turn allowed the development of oriental style monarchies.

[Kosmo]

The republic was a system that brought profits to many thru healthy competition. The aristocrats kept each other in balance while poorer people used the oportunities brought by expansion.

Balance of power and division of profits were the key stones and this were deliberatly and purposly followed. For just an example- the leadership of the army by elected and unexperienced consuls when facing experienced generals was not a mistake but a deliberate policy. Similar policies toward generals were carried by Athens and Carthage.

[Skarr]

One reason for the decline of the Republic was that Rome had expanded too much and too fast. There was too much wealth and gone were the old ways when Cincinnatus preferred going back to the farm when the crisis was over, rather than enjoy his "power".

 

People like Marcus Licinius Crassus were the worst sort of "aristocrats", if you could call him that, as he made money on the backs of the poor, by becoming Rome's biggest landlord. Each of the tenements he owned, with many in the Subura itself, were rickety structures and virtual fire traps. I'm not sure how many poor people, citizens of Rome and members of the capite censei or the "head count" lost their lives to fuel his greedy ambitions.

 

Maybe it is a fitting end for him that he died most horribly as the Parthian general, hearing his fondness for gold, had him swallow the yellow molten metal.