Empire VS Republic

[M. Porcius Cato]

Polybius has an interesting take on this subject. He proposed that the Roman Republican system was the best because it incorporated all three elements (Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy) and had checks and balances to ensure that neither branch was too strong. The Monarchy was the Consuls, the Senate was the Aristocracy, and the Concilium Plebis/Tribunes represented the will of the people.

 

True and important. But notice that these same offices existed under the principate. Do you think Polybius really would have considered the principate a republic as well? Why not?

[Julius Ratus]

I think that he would have been apalled by the state of the Late Republic, let alone the Principate. While those offices existed under the Principate, it was in an immasculated form. Even during the Late Republic the system began to fall apart.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think that he would have been apalled by the state of the Late Republic, let alone the Principate. While those offices existed under the Principate, it was in an immasculated form. Even during the Late Republic the system began to fall apart.

 

Yes, he probably would be appalled. But I'm asking how you think Polybius would classify the Augustan constitution given the definition he proposed, and how you think he would reconcile his theory of the rise of Rome with its later history? To the put same question somewhat differently: Had Polybius been able to view events from the time of Diocletian, say, would he have stuck to his original claim that the historical source of Roman dominance was its mixed constitution?

[Pantagathus]

I heard of many theories of how the Roman Republic was the same as the Greek democracy. I also heard that the Roman Empire was similar to the Eastern ways of ruling, since one man ruled over the entire empire and had all the power.

 

Any validity, or just a bad comparison?

I have no clue what you are even trying to compare?

 

Where did you 'hear' this? A fantasy convention?

[caldrail]

I do have a fondness for those larger-than-life early emperors! Does that make the empire better? No, it doesn't. The republic should have been better. had it not failed to contain the worst excesses of roman ambition and greed.

[DecimusCaesar]

The Late Republic/Early Principate is arguably the juiciest era of Roman history. In trying to determine which form of government was the best you risk falling into the trap of thinking that the Republic HAD to collapse in order for the Roman state to survive (the old belief that the Romans would have destroyed themselves through civil wars if Octavian hadn't been made Princeps).

Perhaps for the ordinary man in Rome, the Principate would have been preferable, seeing as certain Emperor's made attempts to win over the favour of the common man. For the Patricians and the rich members of the senate, the Republic would have been preferable as it would have been an oppurtunity to weild power, albeit briefly. No such oppurtunity existed in the Principate, unless the Emperor was overthrown. Therefore I believe that whatever form of government was best, it is all down to the social position of a person in Roman society.

[Rameses the Great]

I have no clue what you are even trying to compare?

 

Where did you 'hear' this? A fantasy convention?

 

Fantasy, historical accords same thing. I have seen it come up in a couple of books before.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I have no clue what you are even trying to compare?

 

Where did you 'hear' this? A fantasy convention?

 

Fantasy, historical accords same thing.

 

So much is explained...

[Rameses the Great]

So much is explained...

and much left unwritten

 

I read it in a book I read about six months ago.

 

It basically said the Republican Rome era was like the Greek democracy and the Roman Empire was like the Middle East and Persian way of one man rules everything.

 

That's all.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[Julia C]

Perhaps the more absolutist period of the Empire (the so-called Dominate) could be compared to an oriental despotate, but surely there's no real comparison between a Greek (Athenian, you mean?) democracy and the Roman Republic.

 

I suppose the Eklesia could approximate the Centuriate assembly in style, but really, that must be more of convenience. The Eklesia seems a natural outgrowth of the Greek agora type discussion place whereas the Comitia Centuriata is obviously militaristic in origin. Neither influenced the other if we take the traditional dates (509BC for the Republic and 504 for Athens) of establishment at face value.

 

Roman magistrate and Athenian magistrates were completely different. A consul had significantly more power than an Athenian archon.

 

Also significant is that the Athenian voting population was a lot smaller than the Roman. The Athenians would not dream of granting their citizenship to foreigners! There would be no Athenian Cato, Marius, or even Cicero.

[Julius Ratus]

I think that he would have been apalled by the state of the Late Republic, let alone the Principate. While those offices existed under the Principate, it was in an immasculated form. Even during the Late Republic the system began to fall apart.

 

Yes, he probably would be appalled. But I'm asking how you think Polybius would classify the Augustan constitution given the definition he proposed, and how you think he would reconcile his theory of the rise of Rome with its later history? To the put same question somewhat differently: Had Polybius been able to view events from the time of Diocletian, say, would he have stuck to his original claim that the historical source of Roman dominance was its mixed constitution?

 

 

Based on the Polybian theory of mixed Roman constitution, I would say that the Augustan constitution was similar with the checks and balances cut out. Unfortunately for Rome, the checks and balances were the good part of the system. In the Augustan model, there are still the Senate and the Consuls, but a fourth, Superior branch is added, the Princeps. Since the Princeps/Emperor had Maius Imperius and Tribunician Potestas he had control of the army and was untouchable. In Rome there were only three military/para-military forces, the Praetorians, the Urban Cohort, and the Vigilies, (and later the German guards) so the Emperor was fully in control. The Consuls were figureheads and the Senate was a rubber stamp. I have no idea what happened to the assemblies but by this point they would have been without purpose.

 

I think that Polybius' assertion that Rome's mixed constitution made it great stands. It was during the Middle Republic that Rome became great. Between the Principate and the end of the Five Good Emperors there were few major threats to Roman power, none on the scale of Hannibal, Mithridates, Spartacus, and the sort. Afterwards, the Romans had rotted from the inside to the point that the Germans were a major threat, the same people who were defeated by Marius and Caesar centuries earlier.

 

By the time of Diocletian, the Roman Wolf was a dying puppie.