The Roman Revolution

[WotWotius]

I have been reading Rodger Syme's The Roman Revolution, and it got me thinking about the various issues raised. Although the principate was a definitive point in Roman History, and World History for that matter, and it changed nearly every aspect of political and social life, I am curious to know if there were any characteristics of the Roman establishment that was not changed by this so-called 'revolution'.

 

Your thoughts?

[Divi Filius]

I would say that the biggest effect of the 'revolution' was probably felt in Italy and, more specifically, in Rome. I could not imagine that the Greek world or the western provinces really felt the upheaval to any great extent.

 

Of course this is on a purely political level, no doubt the various wars and repercussions effected the provinces.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Segestan]

Could you be more specific on Just what the " Roman Revolution" was suppose to have been?

 

regards,

[caldrail]

Could you be more specific on Just what the " Roman Revolution" was suppose to have been?

 

regards,

 

The Roman Revolution is about the republic being replaced by a dictator and then an empire, although our words for it are modern and lose the meaning the romans had. The roman word for emperor - Imperator - actually means military leader and is a mark of respect from the legions. The empire in a strict sense - the control over foreign states - was already in existence during the republic. Its just that by convention we refer the roman state from Augustus onward as the Empire.

 

The republic was a reasonably stable plutocracy - rule by the wealthy - with a high degree of law and culture, at least in theory. The revolution was the rise of individual leaders instead of the temporary shared format that had worked so well. Ultimately, Octavian was the winner. Although its often thought that the 'Empire' was a monarchy, this is not so. It tended to develop toward one, as is natural for an autocratic state, but lacked the stability and traditions to allow it.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

One thing I have been trying to learn more about was the plight of the urban poor during the principate. Was this socio-economic aspect of Rome changed by the "revolution"?

 

I know Augustus undertook some major settlement projects for veterans and some for the urban poor. I also know that up to 200,000 citizens were on the grain dole in Rome as well during Augustus and this benefit was continued for quite a while (up to Nero?). Did either of these types of measures markedly raise the poor's standard of living or even reduce the number of those living below the poverty level?

[M. Porcius Cato]

One thing I have been trying to learn more about was the plight of the urban poor during the principate. Was this socio-economic aspect of Rome changed by the "revolution"?

 

One of Octavian's reforms was to reduce the number of slaves that could be freed. This probably had an impact on the number of poor citizens but not for any reason that could be admired.

[Segestan]

Augustus installed a ..' Caesar's Tax ; his own personal tax revenue system. The people payed the state and also unto Caesar. His great public works deeds were not for the good of Rome but rather all payed for by the very persons whom he had, through state authority , had by default, placed as a dependent. His feeding of the masses with the great Grain of Egypt was nothing more than state sponsored ransom.

As Christ is purported to have said: 'Pay unto Caesar that which is Caesars' and give unto God that which is his'.

Only thing is : In Roman Imperial Religion of the Empire... of elitist .....Caesar WAS God.

 

If I remember correctly: His restricting of freeing slaves was to protect a slave trading industry. A citizen had the right to free slaves. Many persons would come into the Empire willingly as Slaves that they could be latter freed by their Master and thus gain the priviledges of Citizenship. Most citizens never payed tax and could own land. The conquered Provinces were tax paying subjects.

[caldrail]

One thing I have been trying to learn more about was the plight of the urban poor during the principate. Was this socio-economic aspect of Rome changed by the "revolution"?

 

I know Augustus undertook some major settlement projects for veterans and some for the urban poor. I also know that up to 200,000 citizens were on the grain dole in Rome as well during Augustus and this benefit was continued for quite a while (up to Nero?). Did either of these types of measures markedly raise the poor's standard of living or even reduce the number of those living below the poverty level?

 

Lets understand what we mean by the urban poor. Most people in the city of Rome were not wealthy. Some had trades and could live reasonably well but thats still poor by our standards, unless they were able to expand and own several businesses. The real urban poor were the immigrants who came to Rome seeking work and finding none. These people lived in squalid conditions that we associate with third world poor today. The grain dole didn't actually raise their standard of living at all - it merely prevented them from starving and also prevented any food riots. Arguably, like any social charity, the grain dole did nothing to encourage these people to seek work and probably a fair few of them were scrounging off wealthier men.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If I remember correctly: His restricting of freeing slaves was to protect a slave trading industry.

 

No historian has ever suggested this motivation. The standard explanation is that Octavian curtailed manumission to relieve demands on the corn dole. Previously, slave owners could relieve themselves of the cost of feeding their slaves by passing off the costs to the state via manumission.

[caldrail]

If I remember correctly: His restricting of freeing slaves was to protect a slave trading industry.

 

No historian has ever suggested this motivation. The standard explanation is that Octavian curtailed manumission to relieve demands on the corn dole. Previously, slave owners could relieve themselves of the cost of feeding their slaves by passing off the costs to the state via manumission.

 

Wasn't another reason that too many slaves were being freed in peoples wills as a way of being remembered as a generous man?

[Ursus]

I have sadly never actually read it from cover to cover; but other authors quote Syme so extensively it's hard not to be familiar with the general ideas. The last book I read that was a direct response to Syme (and who took a contrary approach) was from Karl Galinsky. He prefers to see Augustus as the front man of a cultural evolution rather than as the strong man of a political revolution.

 

 

I am curious to know if there were any characteristics of the Roman establishment that was not changed by this so-called 'revolution'.

 

 

I am not sure I understand the question.... The Principate was a curious blend of tradition and innovation - innovation masked by tradition. What exactly are you asking?

[Virgil61]

If I remember correctly: His restricting of freeing slaves was to protect a slave trading industry.

 

No historian has ever suggested this motivation. The standard explanation is that Octavian curtailed manumission to relieve demands on the corn dole. Previously, slave owners could relieve themselves of the cost of feeding their slaves by passing off the costs to the state via manumission.

 

The other motivation [from Anthony Everitt's Augustus] is thought-provoking; Augustus was worried about manumission and subsequent citizenship enfranchisement's effect on the 'Italianness' of the population with perhaps a view towards pandering to the prejudice's of the average Italian.

 

It's been over 20 years since I've read Syme's work; I've ordered a new copy from Amazon to fix that.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The other motivation [from Anthony Everitt's Augustus] is thought-provoking; Augustus was worried about manumission and subsequent citizenship enfranchisement's effect on the 'Italianness' of the population with perhaps a view towards pandering to the prejudices of the average Italian.

That's an intriguing idea. How does Everitt come to this conclusion?

[Virgil61]

The other motivation [from Anthony Everitt's Augustus] is thought-provoking; Augustus was worried about manumission and subsequent citizenship enfranchisement's effect on the 'Italianness' of the population with perhaps a view towards pandering to the prejudices of the average Italian.

That's an intriguing idea. How does Everitt come to this conclusion?

 

Not sure exactly since he doesn't source that paragraph, or a lot of other statements.

 

Here's the relevant paragraph--pg 241 in the hardback version for those who'd like to sing along--which contains two quotes:

 

Much of the Roman public believed that there were too many liberti: they were swamping the citizen body, diluting its Italianness. This appears to have worried Augustus too, who expressed a wish in his will to "preserve a significant distinction between Roman citizens and the peoples of subject nations." It is reported that when Livia once asked him to make a Gallic dependent of hers from a tribute-paying province a citizen, he refused, offering exemption from tribute instead. he said: "I would rather forfeit whatever he may owe the Privy Pure than cheapen the value of Roman citizenship."

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks for the excerpt. I'm still not thrilled with this explanation for manumission, however. If Augustus had really wanted to preserve the "Italianness" of the Roman citizen body, he could have passed a blanket act regulating the number of freed slaves who would be admitted as citizens, yet allowed them their freedom. (Unfortunately, however, my own source on Augustus' motivations is an article by Erich Segal that I read a very, very long time ago.)