Poll - Are you an "optimatis" or a "Popularis" ?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Please explain your choise

 

Damn , I can't make the poll to work !!!!!!!

 

Never the less...

 

Those were my options -

1. An extremist Optimatis - give the power to the oligarchic nobility

2. A moderate Optimatis - A mixed government between Consuls from the nobility and T.P from the people

3. A moderate Popularis - Give the power to the poeple bt their T.P with subordinates generals

4. An extremist Popularis - A dictator by the people for the people

5. Bring back the Tarquins

Edited December 12, 2006 by Pertinax

[Primus Pilus]

When creating a poll make sure you fill in all choices even though they may seem to be the same thing... Poll Title, Poll Question and the Choices.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Ah... yes , thanks

[Primus Pilus]

I suppose any such choice would largely depend upon one's station at the time. Assuming that I were a backbench senator simply for the sake of argument, I would've likely leaned to the moderate side of the optimates, since that's where I tend to place myself in general context of our discussions here.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Funny, I would think that an extreme populare would be in favor of direct democracy, not dictatorship. I guess that shows what frauds the populares were--they claimed to be for the people, but even the populare advocates (such as the one who made this poll) can't hide that they really want (to be) dictators. All the guff about "the People" is just a cover for the populares' real ambition--naked power.

[CiceroD]

I dont think I could support an oligarchy just because Im not an aristocrat.

maybe its just American programming, but the patricians of the late Republic seemed to be ambivilant to the public good. That said, mob rule is a very bad thing indeed!

 

 

P.S. if an extreme popularis is a Dictator, isnt an extreme optimatis a Kleptocrat?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Oh , Cato , being semantic again ha ?

 

I am not so naive as to say (like many scholars until some 50 years ago , and you too ?) that the Populares wanted a Democracy...

Rome was not a Democracy ever , they even did not know what is Democracy in the modern sense !

The people could gain power (benefits) in just one way - Caesar's way . But again , I am sure that you know that .

 

Populares , a simple defination from wikipedia (a source used by you in another thread) -

"Populares ("Favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who tended to use the peoples' assemblies in an effort to break the stranglehold of the nobiles and optimates on political power.

 

Populare plans included some moving of Roman citizens to provincial colonies; expansion of citizenship to communities outside of Rome and Italy; and modification of the grain dole and monetary value. The populare cause reached its peak under the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, the most avid leader of the populares. After the creation of the Second Triumvirate (43 BC

Edited December 12, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[The Augusta]

OK - I'm going to shock you all! Let me say first of all that my choice of what kind of Roman I would have been has nothing at all to do with my present day political leanings - which are a sort of liberal/drenched Tory. However, as I've always been able to 'think' myself back into the era, I would have been an extreme optimate. The nobiles all the way for me, I'm afraid. To me, it was the aristocratic families who made the Republic great from her earliest days. I would have had no time at all for the mob, and I would not have trusted them to have any meaningful say in great matters of policy. (I'd have made a good Claudian!)

 

Of course when things began to degenerate and the nobiles were squabbling among themselves then a strong leader was needed to take things by the scruff of the neck. Nothing lasts forever. I am only basing my choices within the context of the age, and NOT using any modern parallels. The monarchy too has its attractions for me. But one question I'd love to ask Decimus as the starter of the thread: even if a person chose to be with the populares, would he really be acting for the people? Call me a cynic, but I have my doubts. I think the People only mattered when they lined up in their tribes.

 

It's an interesting poll, Decimus - it could open up a real can of worms. Be warned

[Caesar CXXXVII]

A tie...like in 49...

[ModernMarvel]

I've always held to the belief that a government should be small, doing only the things that the private sector couldn't or won't do. Hence, I believe in a dictator of the people and for the people, and also subject TO the people. That being said, I do not believe in a true democracy, thats a logistical nightmare, but a simple Representative Republic like the "good 'ole days" of Rome....well..uh...the Republic was never simple, but effective.

 

In the end, a moderate Popularis

 

marvel

[Julius Ratus]

Moderate populare. I am fully for the Popularis cause but anything done to excess is problematic at best. I have a conservative streak but have no use for the "old blood", especially when all they do is squabble amongst themselves.

[The Augusta]

Moderate populare. I am fully for the Popularis cause but anything done to excess is problematic at best. I have a conservative streak but have no use for the "old blood", especially when all they do is squabble amongst themselves.

 

Aw, come on, Julius - it kept the Republic occupied for 500 years!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Moderate populare. I am fully for the Popularis cause but anything done to excess is problematic at best. I have a conservative streak but have no use for the "old blood", especially when all they do is squabble amongst themselves.

 

And how would you have had the senate conduct its business if it were not to debate matters? Were the right policies simply to emerge from the head of Jove, or is it possible that all that "squabbling" was actually productive and in the best interests of the republic?

[Favonius Cornelius]

It is possible for a populares dictator to be supportive of the people's needs, and through it gain personal power. Clearly as seen in the Roman epic, many Emperors were far better to the people than most ages of Optimate supremacy.

 

Of course, many were also much worse, but the possibility of that definition exists.

[Julius Ratus]

Moderate populare. I am fully for the Popularis cause but anything done to excess is problematic at best. I have a conservative streak but have no use for the "old blood", especially when all they do is squabble amongst themselves.

 

And how would you have had the senate conduct its business if it were not to debate matters? Were the right policies simply to emerge from the head of Jove, or is it possible that all that "squabbling" was actually productive and in the best interests of the republic?

 

Seeing that Athena sprouted form Joves head, maybe that would have been a good policy for the senate, figureatively speaking. Maybe if they had sprouted more wisdom and less wit they might have gotten someting done.

 

The best example I can think of is the B.S. where the Senate gave Scipio command of Sicilia knowing that he intended to invade Africa from there, but did not give him the right to levy troops. I don't know how they expected him to properly execute the war without men, and luckily for the republic he was able to find volunteers and the Cannae legions, without which all he would have had was Massinissa's Numidians (keep in mind that at this point Massinissa had no kingdom). It's that type of crap that caused the frustration of so many of Rome's greatest men, who were trying to help but were stifled by the "old men".

 

 

Aw, come on, Julius - it kept the Republic occupied for 500 years!

 

Much like celebrities today.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Julius Ratus