Roman Murderous Politics

[Cassius Loginus]

Sometimes I wonder comparing Ancient Rome politics to nowadays politics, it seems that Roman used to conduct their government in barbaric way. Praetors, Quaestors and Consuls used to be elected through bribery, murder etc. Even Tiberius Gracchus murder seems barbaric to nowadays.

 

Am I correct to think that in those days (the Republic days) Rome was barbaric compared to today however the way the Romans conduct their ways of Government was civil compared to their world (the Goths and Vandals were even more barbaric).

[caldrail]

It may seem that way, but essentially there's little difference. Many roman politicians weren't installed by such dubious means, and the reason why we stress the ones that were is because of the scandal involved. Whereas an ordinary unexceptional politician achieves position normally and doesn't make waves, a ruthless, even murderous politician is hardly going to escape notice. Although I believe roman politics was inherently more corrupt than today (though you have to wonder sometimes!), if you think about it, today we still have smear campaigns, political assassinations etc. Its just now with modern detection and policing its a bit harder to get away with it, so there's a deterrent involved.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Let's compare apples to apples.

 

In 81 BC, the dictator Sulla proscribed 600 political opponents in what was arguably the worst political violence in the history of the Roman republic (not counting civil wars or violence to non-Romans). That's 600 proscriptions per 800,000 Roman citizens, or .075% of the population. Let this rate of political murder be called a "Sulla".

 

Between 1939-1945 CE, the dictator Hitler proscribed at least 240,000 Germans in what was arguably the worst political violence in German history (again, not counting violence to non-Germans). That's 240,000 proscriptions per 80 million German citizens, which is proportionately 4 Sullae.

 

Between 1928 and 1935 CE, the dictator Stalin killed 11 million Soviets--and the communists were just warming up. That's 11 million of 164 million Soviet subjects, which at 6.7% of the population is proportionately 90 Sullae.

 

Now where are the barbarians--in ancient Rome, where there was only 1 Sulla, or modern Europe, where there were at least 94?

Edited December 16, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Ursus]

Cassius,

 

I think the world has always been a violent place, and most likely always will be despite modernism's humanitarian pretensions. Even today in India, the world's largest democracy, a political election can lead to bloody riots.

 

As Cato points out, 20th century Europeans were also incredibly violent. (And Cato could even have added Mao from China, whose deaths dwarf even Stalin). Admittedly though, 20th century totalitarians had access to 20th century technology. A Sulla armed with machine guns and cyanide gas might have done more damage, who knows.

[Gaius Octavius]

The Roman politician was probably no more self seeking than any modern politician. But murder and mayhem in Rome pales before that practiced as above, and in such other places as Lebanon, Saddam's Iraq, Somalia, Afganistan, Cambodia, etc. I would even suggest that the barbarians would have a hard time holding a candle to the 20th and 21st century 'barbarians'.