Republican Politics

[Cassius Loginus]

During the Republican era, both two Consuls represented the Aristrocracy of the Senate or one of them represented the interests of the Plebeians apart of the Tribunes?

Edited November 24, 2007 by Cassius Loginus

[caldrail]

Neither. According to Polybius, the government of Rome was divided into three sections with no discernable gap. The Consuls ruled by decree, they were the roman prime ministers for a year, who provided leadership. The Senate ruled by virtue of prestige, bribery, and the provision of food and entertainment. The Common people had access to government via the voting assemblies, the Comitia Curiata, Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa, and the Consilium Plebis. However, due to patronage the common people were often obliged to vote as required by their patron. The senate of course was largely disinterested in the affairs of the poor (one of the reasons for their failure to retain control). The plebians had to work hard to get attention, and the Gracchi movement was the most pointed attempt to persuade the senate to look after the interests of poor people, through the issue of land reform. The two Gracchi met a sticky end because of it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Consuls did not rule by decree--not according to Polybius or any of our ancient sources. All laws were passed by plebiscites, not consular decrees. For details, see Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic.

 

Nor was it the case that patronage obligated anyone to vote a particular way. With a secret ballot, such an obligation would have been impossible to enforce, and it's clear from the social conflicts of the republic that patrons and clients very often voted for different types of candidates (see Brunt's "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic").

[caldrail]

...nothing altered the central fact of the Republican Government, that it was the collective rule of an aristocracy...

 

...The republic was disolved in the first century BC because it failed to address the increasingly serious grievances of the poor, and that members of this elite had appealed directly to the poor for support in the fight against each other...

 

...The domination of the Roman governing class found expression in the institution of clientela, clientship, an archaic form of personal dependence, which survived at Rome with undiminished relevance, in striking contrast to Athens and the greek world in general....

 

The Roman Republic Michael Crawford.

 

Before the democratic movement of the Gracchi, and again for thirty years after them, the essential feature of the history of Rome was the monopoly of power by the Senate. Although this body was too narrow in its interests, too selfish, and too persistently riven by faction to be well-suited to governing an empire, its predominance continued, not so much (as Polybius claimed) because the constitution possessed effective balances, as because an ancient tradition of service was still sometimes apparent among Roman senators, and the members of their inner circle continued to display a flair for politics. By prestige, bribery, the purveyance of food and entertainments, and the satisfaction of great armies of 'clients' - who depended on them for subsistence and gave them political support in return - the nobles had long been accustomed to inducing the Assembly of the Roman People to elect them to consulships which were the principal offices of the state.

 

The World Of Rome Michael Grant

 

The view that romans had true democracy is wrong. Romans were extremely class concious, far more so than we would understand, and the aristocracy of Rome simply wasn't going to pass up an opportunity to swing things to their favour. Also, you're ignoring the gratitude and loyalty of clients toward their patrons. All this talk of secret ballots is all very well, but you're ignoring roman corruption - I'll go further - you have an unnecessarily romantic and idealistic view of the roman republic. That republic functioned by deals under the table. Thats how romans did business.

Edited November 29, 2007 by caldrail

[M. Porcius Cato]

Michael Crawford is a fine coin collector, but his repetition of the same tired claims WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE makes him a lousy historian. There is simply no evidence that patronage worked the way he'd like to claim it does.

 

BTW, I've never claimed that Rome was a "true democracy." It had a mixed constitution.

[caldrail]

And Michael Grant? John L Patterson (Political Life In The City Of Rome)? They all say the same things. I agree with them. You see, you regard the republic as essentially superior to the empire. But what was different? The romans hadn't changed one iota. They were still competitive, they were still prone to corruption, they were still class concious, and they still operated by obligation and private agreement, just like they always had. Rome may well have had good intentions (or rather thsoe romans who weren't among the aristocracy and were campaigning for exactly the sort of democratic state you describe) with all these assemblies, traditions, and rulings, but you cannot escape the nature of the roman people. Just because a law exists does not mean its adhered to. Do you ever break the speed limit when driving? More to the point, the law exists often in an attempt to rectify a lack of observance of existing rules. Just ask our current government, they make laws to enforce laws that were made to 'plug gaps' in laws that already covered the situation. Was Rome really so different? No, I don't think so. And its all very well rubbishing Michael Crawfords work claiming he has no evidence, but you don't have any evidence that 'one man, one vote' ever really existed in roman politics as a safeguarded tradition and legal right, especially since we know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government.

[M. Porcius Cato]

And Michael Grant? John L Patterson (Political Life In The City Of Rome)? They all say the same things. I agree with them.

And Erich Gruen? And Fergus Millar? And Nathan Rosenstein? And Morstein-Marx? And Yakobson? And Brunt? They all disagree with this view of the Roman Republic--and unlike Grant, their actual specialty is research on the Roman republic. Grant is a wonderful writer for the general public, but his academic specialty is simply not the Roman republic, which he would be the first to admit.

 

You see, you regard the republic as essentially superior to the empire. But what was different? The romans hadn't changed one iota.

They hadn't changed one iota?? That's absurd. Read Livy and Tacitus. Forced to kowtow to the dominance of one ruler, the bold spirit of the old Roman character was slowly eroded by fear, servility, and finally serfdom.

 

A free people require their leaders to explain themselves and justify their actions, as the tribunes of the republic required of consuls like Pompey and senators like Cicero--they don't permit homicidal lunatics like Caligula and Nero to abuse them without resistance, as the lapdogs of the empire did.

 

A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire.

 

A free people can even taunt, satirize, and write ribald poems about their leaders, as Favorinus and Catullus did--during the empire, this kind of thing could and did get people killed.

 

A free people can chart their own personal lives. Just think about the incident with Augustus and his daughter Julia--only when you have supreme power vested in one person do you get the utter absurdity of one woman's sex life causing the deaths and exiles of so many people. During the republic, women like Julia certainly existed (Servilia, Fulvia and Fulvia come immediately to mind), but they were free to be as promiscuous as they wanted w/o getting all their lovers killed.

 

The empire changed nothing? I think you underestimate the importance of libertas in contributing to Romanitas. Who was it who said, "I am a Roman, and you are just a king"? By the time of Domitian, this spirit was gone with the wind.

 

you don't have any evidence that 'one man, one vote' ever really existed in roman politics as a safeguarded tradition and legal right, especially since we know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government.

We DON'T know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government. NO Roman sources attest to such an arrangement. If you can find a SINGLE ancient source that attests to such a system, I'll eat crow. Really, if we're going to just make up institutions out of thin air, we might as well get creative and claim that Martians were very nearly an alternative government!

 

In contrast to this fictional system for which there is absolutely no evidence, we DO have ample evidence of voting in ancient Rome, as well as the fact that voting was a legal right. The evidence can be found in all the ancient historians of the period. The procedure for voting was printed on coins. Private letters frequently speculate how votes would turn out, feature advice on winning votes or not losing them, etc. In one letter, a consul who had been appointed by an emperor wrote in thanks that he hadn't had to go to the bother of running for election and thereby facing all the ancient anxieties of not knowing how it would turn out. Come to think of it, if votes had been arranged by patrons, why did candidates bother to campaign among voters themselves? Further, what do you think the Social War was for? Why do you think it came to an end? What do you think the various forms of municipal governments were all about? Do you understand what Latin rights are? What do you think all the lex tabellaria were about? To think that voting was not a legal right is simply a massive evasion of the evidence or simply utter ignorance of it.

[ASCLEPIADES]

A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire.

An interesting kind of auto-mutilation.

 

Can you quote your sources, please?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Nephele]

A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire.

An interesting kind of auto-mutilation.

 

Can you quote your sources, please?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Try Suetonius, Life of Augustus, 24:

 

"He sold a Roman knight and his property at public auction, because he had cut off the thumbs of two young sons, to make them unfit for military service..."

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Try Suetonius, Life of Augustus, 24:

 

"He sold a Roman knight and his property at public auction, because he had cut off the thumbs of two young sons, to make them unfit for military service..."

 

-- Nephele

Gratiam habeo, Lady N.

 

BTW, it seems it was an extraordinary procedure, both for the Republican ot the Imperial Ages.

[M. Porcius Cato]

BTW, it seems it was an extraordinary procedure, both for the Republican ot the Imperial Ages.

 

Not so at all. Ammianus Marcellinus strongly implies that it was common in Italy, writing of the Gauls "No one here cuts off his thumb to escape military service, as happens in Italy, where they have a special name for such malingerers (murci)," and consistent with this, the Latin verb murcare means "to be a coward" and in late Latin came to be used as a synonym for self-mutilation (see also Gibbon). Think about this for a second--during the empire, Italians so often cut off their thumbs that there was a special name for this special cowardice, which ultimately became associated with the manner of cowardice (self-mutilation) rather than the feeling itself. In contrast, the republican writer Plautus uses the term simply to mean lazy, not to people who cut off their thumbs.

 

In fact, Ammianus Marcellinus was understating the prevalence of the practice--it even happened in Gaul. Valentinian had to order that such Gauls be burnt alive. See C.Th., VII, 13, 4 (367); 5(368). Moreover, his order threatened to so deplete the army of manpower that the rule was later rescinded by Theodosius, who ordered that those who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service were still to serve in some way. This issue is also discussed in "Seniores-Iuniores in the Late-Roman Field Army," Roger Tomlin, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 93, No. 2. (Apr., 1972), pp. 253-278.

 

Now, we've listed several ancient sources attesting to fairly common draft evasion in the imperial period. Can you find any examples of this practice in the Roman republic? I'll bet not. Instead, you'll find Italians--even when on the back of their heels against Hannibal--refusing to betray Rome. In fact, the only example of self-mutilation that I can think of from the republican period was Mucius Scaevola burning off his right hand to show the Etruscans how BRAVE the Romans were. What a contrast!

[caldrail]

A free people require their leaders to explain themselves and justify their actions, as the tribunes of the republic required of consuls like Pompey and senators like Cicero--they don't permit homicidal lunatics like Caligula and Nero to abuse them without resistance, as the lapdogs of the empire did.

So why wasn't Sulla removed from power for breaking one the most important traditions, of no military interference in Rome? Why did he not have to explain himself tio the masses? Why was Julius Caesar not removed from power in Rome for the same reason? My point however is that the the romans were not entirely a free people. No individual of the lower ranks of Rome could make his voice felt. They only did so if someone of higher status decided their cause was just, or if they spoke as a mob. These supposedly free men were restricted in where they could sit for crying out loud. You keeping pushing the view that Rome was democratic, but that ignores the restrictions of roman culture.

 

A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire.

Although the cutting of thumbs was common practice by the late empire, its recorded that Augustus had to deal with that problem, and since recruiment had remained more or less the same since Marius, we can safely assume the problem existed during the republic too. Also, free people often have no interest in defense at all. Why should they? If they feel the need to defend, then people are not free - they are required by circumstance or inclination to adopt a restricted attitude.

 

A free people can even taunt, satirize, and write ribald poems about their leaders, as Favorinus and Catullus did--during the empire, this kind of thing could and did get people killed. Plenty of figures got satirised and mocked in public, including emperors, and I notice the suprise in Suetonius when Augustus refuses to punish severely a slave who mocked. These attitudes were nothing new, so therefore, I can again safely assume that pre-imperial VIP's did get upset sometimes. However I concede there was more restraint in republican times.

 

A free people can chart their own personal lives. Just think about the incident with Augustus and his daughter Julia--only when you have supreme power vested in one person do you get the utter absurdity of one woman's sex life causing the deaths and exiles of so many people. During the republic, women like Julia certainly existed (Servilia, Fulvia and Fulvia come immediately to mind), but they were free to be as promiscuous as they wanted w/o getting all their lovers killed.

But promiscuity was rarer in the republic, because the prevailing uncertainty meant that people led more austere lives. I forget her name, but one woman scandalised roman society during the late republic for the same activity that merely raised gossip in imperial times. These lifestyle restrictions are part of roman culture, and a free people can't do what they want if they can't afford to. Many of these people were genuinely poor. Thats why they begged for coins at the doors of the wealthy, and also why the wealthy were able to persuade them to do them a favour. Even from first principles it works.

 

We DON'T know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government. NO Roman sources attest to such an arrangement. If you can find a SINGLE ancient source that attests to such a system, I'll eat crow. Really, if we're going to just make up institutions out of thin air, we might as well get creative and claim that Martians were very nearly an alternative government! Martians were running the republic? Thats an interesting premis Cato. Do you have any evidence for that? Thought not. Lets stick to romans shall we? Of course there's no text saying these things - good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were pulling the strings in most cases. On the one hand it was simply life and not worth mentioning, on the other it carried a hint of corruption and wasn't something to admit to.

 

In contrast to this fictional system for which there is absolutely no evidence, we DO have ample evidence of voting in ancient Rome, as well as the fact that voting was a legal right.

Thats not what I meant. Voting was indeed a legal right. What I'm disputing is 'one man, one vote' had any reality in roman politics, and it didn't. The popular assemblies used block votes, not some 'first past the post' system. There were people who campaigned for democracy in roman politics but this was offset by resistance of the privilged, just like most societies. Further, the secret ballot wasn't introduced until 139-131BC, and if Cicero is anything to go by, it was a move that frustrated members of the senate. I wonder why?

[M. Porcius Cato]

A free people require their leaders to explain themselves and justify their actions, as the tribunes of the republic required of consuls like Pompey and senators like Cicero--they don't permit homicidal lunatics like Caligula and Nero to abuse them without resistance, as the lapdogs of the empire did.

So why wasn't Sulla removed from power for breaking one the most important traditions, of no military interference in Rome? Why did he not have to explain himself tio the masses? Why was Julius Caesar not removed from power in Rome for the same reason?

As I assume you are aware, Sulla and Caesar were exceptions, not the rule. Moreover, their tyranny WAS resisted. As Charles had his Cromwell, Sulla had his Sertorius and Caesar had his Brutus. And can it really be that you thought Caesar was not removed from power?? Let me tell you about it: It was a beautiful day, on the ides of March ...

 

My point however is that the the romans were not entirely a free people. No individual of the lower ranks of Rome could make his voice felt. They only did so if someone of higher status decided their cause was just, or if they spoke as a mob. These supposedly free men were restricted in where they could sit for crying out loud. You keeping pushing the view that Rome was democratic, but that ignores the restrictions of roman culture.

In a free society, no individual can MAKE his voice felt--he must persuade his fellow citizens and establish his authority by service to the state. In fact, many of the greatest names in the history of the Roman republic did just that, rising up from the lower ranks, including Cato the Elder, Marius, Cicero, Pompey, and so on. You seem to imagine that democracy consists of everyone making their voice felt, but this is a logical impossibility--as long as there is disagreement among free agents (and of course there will be), each individual's effort to make HIS voice felt will be counteracted by the ability of his neighbor to make HIS voice felt. This basic fact is what gave rise over time to the complicated constitution of the Roman republic. You seem to think that this constitution came all at once as means of suppressing democracy, but if you would just look at the legal chronology, you would see that constitution of the Roman republic arose from the successful struggle for plebeian civil rights. The final result wasn't a pure democracy, but the most important part of it (the making of laws and treaties) was, and it was this element that was destroyed by the emperors.

 

A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire.

Although the cutting of thumbs was common practice by the late empire, its recorded that Augustus had to deal with that problem, and since recruiment had remained more or less the same since Marius, we can safely assume the problem existed during the republic too.

No, you can't safely assume that your counter-argument is true! Present the counter-evidence or concede the point.

 

Also, free people often have no interest in defense at all. Why should they?

This is one of the most important issues in the history of political thought: Free people, in citizen armies, have a stake in government because they own the government and the government is the institution by which they protect themselves. Historically, citizen armies of free states are easier to raise and more difficult to defeat than mercenary armies or armies of oppressive states. This idea goes back to the defeat of the Persians at Marathon, where the free citizens of Athens were able to defeat the Persian serfs who had to be whipped into battle.

 

 

We DON'T know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government. NO Roman sources attest to such an arrangement. If you can find a SINGLE ancient source that attests to such a system, I'll eat crow. Really, if we're going to just make up institutions out of thin air, we might as well get creative and claim that Martians were very nearly an alternative government! Martians were running the republic? Thats an interesting premis Cato. Do you have any evidence for that? Thought not.

EXACTLY my point. We don't have any evidence of Martians or patrons controlling some alternative government. For the same reason that it's absurd to maintain--without any evidence--that Martians controlled the government, it's also absurd to maintain--without any evidence--that patrons controlled the government.

 

Of course there's no text saying these things - good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were pulling the strings in most cases. On the one hand it was simply life and not worth mentioning, on the other it carried a hint of corruption and wasn't something to admit to.

Ha! Very convenient of you. The reason that your claim can't be supported by any evidence is simply because there is a giant conspiracy of silence to suppress the truth (that you somehow know)? Forgive me for saying so, but this is a dumb argument. Formally, it's identical to saying, "Of course there's no text saying that Martians controlled the government! Good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were in a conspiracy with the Martians!" Epistemologically, the two claims are equally incapable of being falsified.

 

In contrast to this fictional system for which there is absolutely no evidence, we DO have ample evidence of voting in ancient Rome, as well as the fact that voting was a legal right.

Thats not what I meant. Voting was indeed a legal right. What I'm disputing is 'one man, one vote' had any reality in roman politics, and it didn't. The popular assemblies used block votes, not some 'first past the post' system.

The popular assemblies voted in their tribes, and it was the number of tribes that determined the winners. But the organization of tribes wasn't based on class or even geography. They were roughly equal sized units. By your reasoning, the electoral college in the US means that Americans don't actually have democratic selection of presidents. If you want to play this game, fine--but then you have an utterly idiosyncratic definition of democracy, one that fails to capture the real differences that exist between republics and monarchies.

[caldrail]

As I assume you are aware, Sulla and Caesar were exceptions, not the rule. Moreover, their tyranny WAS resisted. As Charles had his Cromwell, Sulla had his Sertorius and Caesar had his Brutus. And can it really be that you thought Caesar was not removed from power?? Let me tell you about it: It was a beautiful day, on the ides of March ...

Exceptions? What difference does that make? It happened Cato, you can't just ignore events that don't suit you. And I should point out that Sertorius and Brutus weren't from amongst the great unwashed either. Hardly a point in favour of plebian democracy.

 

In a free society, no individual can MAKE his voice felt--he must persuade his fellow citizens and establish his authority by service to the state. In fact, many of the greatest names in the history of the Roman republic did just that, rising up from the lower ranks, including Cato the Elder, Marius, Cicero, Pompey, and so on. You seem to imagine that democracy consists of everyone making their voice felt, but this is a logical impossibility--as long as there is disagreement among free agents (and of course there will be), each individual's effort to make HIS voice felt will be counteracted by the ability of his neighbor to make HIS voice felt. This basic fact is what gave rise over time to the complicated constitution of the Roman republic. You seem to think that this constitution came all at once as means of suppressing democracy, but if you would just look at the legal chronology, you would see that constitution of the Roman republic arose from the successful struggle for plebeian civil rights. The final result wasn't a pure democracy, but the most important part of it (the making of laws and treaties) was, and it was this element that was destroyed by the emperors.

This is one of the most important issues in the history of political thought: Free people, in citizen armies, have a stake in government because they own the government and the government is the institution by which they protect themselves. Historically, citizen armies of free states are easier to raise and more difficult to defeat than mercenary armies or armies of oppressive states. This idea goes back to the defeat of the Persians at Marathon, where the free citizens of Athens were able to defeat the Persian serfs who had to be whipped into battle.

What on earth are you gabbling on about? A free man exists in a state of harmonious anarchy, a benign state of infinite individuality. He lives without threat, obligation, or responsibility. Like any asymptotic value, its impossible to achieve, largely because we're social animals and form cultures as an extension of our pack behaviour. For every situation that requires interaction and group effort, that free man must relinquish some of his freedoms to co-operate. A free man cannot defend democracy alone, he must therefore seek co-operate with others and either lead or accept leadership to co-ordinate efforts to preserve his herd. The obligations of service and responsibilities of command are not freedom. Those that choose not to co-operate risk rejection by the group, and since we're programmed by nature to regard this as a poor survival strategy we generally go with the flow. Therefore, your concept of democracy is hopelessly biased toward your own ideals (based on classical ideas which I see you admire greatly).

 

it's also absurd to maintain--without any evidence--that patrons controlled the government.

Influence Cato, influence. Human beings do that all the time and always have. You for instance are trying to influence others to believe I'm talking nonsense by pouring scorn on everything I'm writing. Its absurd to believe the roman republican government was whiter than white. Those men were ambitious, powerful, wealthy capitalists who ran a conquest state that ruthlessly enslaved or slaughtered anyone they wanted to. Not a recipe for democratic paradise is it? Get real Cato. Of course there were dirty deals done behind closed doors, there always is in any human society, or are the morning papers not evidence enough for you?

 

Of course there's no text saying these things - good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were pulling the strings in most cases. On the one hand it was simply life and not worth mentioning, on the other it carried a hint of corruption and wasn't something to admit to.

Ha! Very convenient of you. The reason that your claim can't be supported by any evidence is simply because there is a giant conspiracy of silence to suppress the truth (that you somehow know)? Forgive me for saying so, but this is a dumb argument. Formally, it's identical to saying, "Of course there's no text saying that Martians controlled the government! Good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were in a conspiracy with the Martians!" Epistemologically, the two claims are equally incapable of being falsified.

If I want to use the word 'conspriacy', I will do so thank you.

 

Americans[/i] don't actually have democratic selection of presidents.

No thats your reasoning. America may hae based its constitution on classical ideas but wake up, its the twenty first century and a different nation. or do all roads lead to Washington DC?

 

If you want to play this game, fine--but then you have an utterly idiosyncratic definition of democracy, one that fails to capture the real differences that exist between republics and monarchies.

Pardon? Since when was democracy precisely defined by real world politics? Even the greeks fell short and their participating democracy is the closest there's been , at least as far as I'm aware. Democracy is an ideal, one you can approach but never achieve, and like many things in life, it isn't a black and white issue, its shades of grey. The romans had their own shade of it. I'm sorry Cato, but your idea of democracy is utterly naive.

 

You know Cato, I've presented arguments against your view of republican politics. Ok, I may not be an expert on such things, but so far your argument appears to be that I'm wrong, the books I read are wrong, and only the books that agree with your opinion have any value. There is no way I can accept your argument on those principles. Say what you like, your case is unproven, and you won't prove it by attempting to bully me into silence. Please present an arguement based on fact, not your opinion - that is after all what you're demanding of me.

[L. Quintus Sertorius]

I really hate it that my first post in months ends up inflaming an argument, but let's hope some good discussion comes out of this in recompense.

Exceptions? What difference does that make? It happened Cato, you can't just ignore events that don't suit you. And I should point out that Sertorius and Brutus weren't from amongst the great unwashed either. Hardly a point in favour of plebian democracy.

 

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Sertorius wasn't actually even Roman - he was a Sabine, an outsider who rose through the ranks both militarily and politically. The mention of Sertorius really seems counter to your argument - does the fact that he was well educated and relatively wealthy invalidate the fact that he represented the vast majority of Italian politicians? It is to be remembered that the real gulf in Roman political life was not between wealthy aristocrats and the plebes sordidi - rather, it was between the native Romans, patrician or plebeian, and their provincial counterparts. I see no reason to contest your point about Brutus, however I would remind you that wealthy aristocrats can certainly champion plebeian interests - look at the Gracchi, for example.

 

 

Influence Cato, influence. Human beings do that all the time and always have. You for instance are trying to influence others to believe I'm talking nonsense by pouring scorn on everything I'm writing. Its absurd to believe the roman republican government was whiter than white. Those men were ambitious, powerful, wealthy capitalists who ran a conquest state that ruthlessly enslaved or slaughtered anyone they wanted to. Not a recipe for democratic paradise is it? Get real Cato. Of course there were dirty deals done behind closed doors, there always is in any human society, or are the morning papers not evidence enough for you?

 

I won't comment on Cato's style of argument, except to say that I've never known him to argue illogically, ad hominem or otherwise. However, I would remind you that simply because the Romans did operate a voracious conquest state does not necessarily mean that their domestic politics were not reasonably, even exceptionally democratic for the times. After all, by the time of Caesar, all Italians had been granted the right to vote in Roman elections - the fact that few had the resources to do so is not a grand conspiracy of the wealthy to stifle the vox populi, but simply an economic reality. The fact that Roman political life was, for their times and ours, quite representative of the people is, I think, indisputable - granted, you can quibble about the difficulties of true representation in the ancient world; however, I would argue that the Romans were no less advanced in governmental theory than we are, they were simply more limited technologically.

 

 

No thats your reasoning. America may hae based its constitution on classical ideas but wake up, its the twenty first century and a different nation. or do all roads lead to Washington DC?

 

Actually, the Presidential election is quite undemocratic, as long as we follow the rather ambiguous definition of "democratic" that you have argued for. And what is so wrong with comparing the Roman system to the American?

 

 

Pardon? Since when was democracy precisely defined by real world politics? Even the greeks fell short and their participating democracy is the closest there's been , at least as far as I'm aware. Democracy is an ideal, one you can approach but never achieve, and like many things in life, it isn't a black and white issue, its shades of grey. The romans had their own shade of it. I'm sorry Cato, but your idea of democracy is utterly naive.

 

I would argue that democracy as an unattainable ideal is actually a rather modern conception. I'm not quite certain how you can assert that the Greeks fell short in democratizing - they did invent it as a system of government, after all. I would like to hear your argument for why democracy is more an ideal than a concrete system - the Athenians certainly did not quibble over such matters, because democracy was simply their system of government. As conceived, democracy was simply a form of government that allowed the Athenian citizens to vote in a body on policy and governing matters. I think the idea of democracy as some grand "Brotherhood of Man", where all are allowed to speak and be heard would be quite alien to Athens.

 

You know Cato, I've presented arguments against your view of republican politics. Ok, I may not be an expert on such things, but so far your argument appears to be that I'm wrong, the books I read are wrong, and only the books that agree with your opinion have any value. There is no way I can accept your argument on those principles. Say what you like, your case is unproven, and you won't prove it by attempting to bully me into silence. Please present an arguement based on fact, not your opinion - that is after all what you're demanding of me.

 

Cato quotes primary sources and respected scholars to substantiate his argument. I really don't see him attempting to bully you into silence - you're discussing an issue on which you have differing opinions, of course he's going to attempt to prove your ideas incorrect or invalid.

Edited December 5, 2007 by L. Quintus Sertorius