Is this true?

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

We are also, for good as well as ill, the heirs of the Roman Republic. Had the title not already been taken, I would have called this book Citizens--- for they are its protagnoists, and the tragedy of the Republic's collapse is theirs. The Roman people too, in the end, grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace. Rather bread and circuses than endless internecine wars. As the Romans themselves recognized, their freedom had contained the seeds of its own ruin, a reflection sufficient to inspire much gloomy moralizing under the rule of a Nero or a Domitian. Nor in the centirues since, has it ever lost its power to unsettle.

---Preface, The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland

 

Is this true?

[Klingan]

The Roman people too, in the end, grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace. Rather bread and circuses than endless internecine wars.

 

Easy slavery and peace wasn't coming hand in hand. As the offensive wars pretty much ended so did a very large part of the sources for slaves. Bread and gamed were not connected to the wars but to the happiness of the masses in the large cities.

 

As the Romans themselves recognized, their freedom had contained the seeds of its own ruin

 

Reading ancient texts it's quite clear that the Romans praised their ancient virtues. However they never connect this in anyway to that the roman state (in any shape) would ever be able to fall. Even during the military emperors of the 3rd century it seems like people thought that things were just going on as they used to.

 

 

It's a very catchy preface thou, he's probably been thinking about that for a long time.

[ASCLEPIADES]

We are also, for good as well as ill, the heirs of the Roman Republic. Had the title not already been taken, I would have called this book Citizens--- for they are its protagnoists, and the tragedy of the Republic's collapse is theirs. The Roman people too, in the end, grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace. Rather bread and circuses than endless internecine wars. As the Romans themselves recognized, their freedom had contained the seeds of its own ruin, a reflection sufficient to inspire much gloomy moralizing under the rule of a Nero or a Domitian. Nor in the centirues since, has it ever lost its power to unsettle.

---Preface, The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland

 

Is this true?

Salve, Amici.

Certainly, Mr Holland critical appraisal is never easy to dismiss.

I specially like two aspects from his theory, which are better explained here than in other theories I'm aware of:

 

1) It considers a collective responsability for the demise of the Republic, too great to blame any specific individual, even Caesar, Octavius or whoever you like.

 

2) It explains why the Republic never came back, even after having so many chances ( Brutus, Murena, Chaerea, Galba and so on).

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure low Roman people status was any more slavery-like in the Early Empire than in the Late Republic, specially regarding the Roman soldiers, who were after all Roman citizens too.

 

Overall, a nice and valuable contribution to our understanding of the demise of the Roman republic.

 

Mr Holland's Book on Amazon.com

[Ingsoc]

We are also, for good as well as ill, the heirs of the Roman Republic. Had the title not already been taken, I would have called this book Citizens--- for they are its protagnoists, and the tragedy of the Republic's collapse is theirs. The Roman people too, in the end, grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace. Rather bread and circuses than endless internecine wars. As the Romans themselves recognized, their freedom had contained the seeds of its own ruin, a reflection sufficient to inspire much gloomy moralizing under the rule of a Nero or a Domitian. Nor in the centirues since, has it ever lost its power to unsettle.

---Preface, The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland

 

Is this true?

 

Is all point that the Roman citizen body was responsible to the collapse of the Republic is incorrect in my eyes:

 

In the last republican census some 910,000 citizens were counts, obviously since the elections were held only in Rome not all of them could attend, furthermore an election took at least one day of work a day that the poor couldn't afford to waste and I doubt they care much who would be the next consul - the fight between the aristocracy of the republic simply didn't concern the issues that was important to them like the hight rent, unemployment, fires and etc. only in uncanny cases like the Grachi agrarian laws or Pompius special command in the east they had interests to attend.

 

And in an event they could attend they simply would have much say in the elections of the magistrates due to the structure of the Comitia Centuriata which was timocratian and almost always led to decisions being made without the voting of the poorer centuriatas.

 

So in the end the republic fall wasn't due to the so call corruption of the Roman people in the late republic but to the inability of the small aristocracy to compromise and that led to the civil wars and in the end to the rise of the imperial autocratic system.

[ASCLEPIADES]

So in the end the republic fall wasn't due to the so call corruption of the Roman people in the late republic but to the inability of the small aristocracy to compromise and that led to the civil wars and in the end to the rise of the imperial autocratic system.

Salve, I. Excellent commentary, we agree.

 

But of course, if Roman people would have really liked the Republic to return, so would it have happened, corrupt aristocracy or not.

[Ursus]

Is this true?

 

The collapse of the Republic, its causes and aftermaths, its moral dimensions, is a source of endless debate around here and always will be.

 

Having read Holland's two books (Rubicon, Persian Fire), one gets the sense he has an axe to grind against current events, and tries to link history as much as possible to current events. Even Holland admits later in the preface that comparisons between America and Rome are a cliche - but he has no problem milking the cliche (Pompei's campaign against the pirates is entitled "The War on Terror", for instance). So regardless of the issues surrounding the fall of the Republic, realize that Holland may have a deeper agenda.

[caldrail]

On the one hand comparisons between past times and ours are awkward, because circumstances were obviously different. However, its also true that as human beings we're not different from the romans apart from certain social customs and technology. There are some extraordinary parallels in the history of our civilisations - I've written posts on that very point - and this reflects human behaviour. So is there an analogy between us and the romans? Oh yes.

Edited June 26, 2008 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

On Arduumresgestasscriber's long forgotten original question that began this thread, my own conclusion is:

 

1.- I totally agree with Tom Holland that Citizens would have been a far better title for his book and that they were indeed the protagonists of the fall of the Republic.

2.- However, I find that attributing the Republic's fall to a loosely defined Roman citizenship's corruption is a too general and commonplace statement that contributes nothing to determine the causes and mechanisms of such crucial event.

3.- The notion that its vicious corruption may have justified the Republic's displacement by military autocrats seems to me like nowadays' remnants from Caesarean and Augustean propaganda.

 

All that said, and given that we are getting so off topic with the fascinating issue of the Cilician pirates, I think it merits its own thread.

Edited June 29, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Minerva]

Wasn't it more the acts of those who had political power and those who aspired for it and the weakness of the senate that caused the republic to totter an fall rather than the mere citizens?

Edited July 4, 2008 by Minerva

[ASCLEPIADES]

Wasn't it more the acts of those who had political power and those who aspired for it and the weakness of the senate that caused the republic to totter an fall rather than the mere citizens?

Salve, M.

 

That can be true only if you consider those citizens as entirely passive objects from their political environment.

[caldrail]

Wasn't it more the acts of those who had political power and those who aspired for it and the weakness of the senate that caused the republic to totter an fall rather than the mere citizens?

 

A weak senate? Yet Augustus was very careful to keep them sweet. The senate was composed of wealthy and influential men, a sort of club for the privileged, and there were always going to be men among them waiting in the wings to attain power. Indeed, the republican system was designed to allow people the opportunity to do so and impede one man from dominating politics. Notice how people joked about the year of Julius and Caesar as consuls, when the lacklustre partner (ironic, but I've forgotten his name. Bibulus?) was pushed aside to all intent and purposes. It isn't so much the senate were weak, it had more to do with the rise of legionary commanders with political aspirations as influential men in their own right, with personal loyalty from their troops rather than to Rome, but also because the senate were more cocerned with their own privilege than serving public duty, thus had effectively lost the support of common people by that stage. Julius Caesar for instance took advantage of that, and against nromal roman custom went among the plebs canvassing for support rather like modern politicians do. Senators were more used to the plebs canvassing them for support. Also, you need to realise the culture of Rome was undergoing a change. In reaction to one war after another, the people were seeking alternatives and whatever luxuries they could obtain. In this manner, the descent of roman morality after the Punic Wars mirrors that of Britain after WW2. Senators of course exploited this sea change and the whole 'bread and circuses' thing became the way to please the public, to fob them off with enough food and entertainment to stop them becoming politically agitated. They were more interested in their own career prospects and class privilege than a few rogue generals.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Notice how people joked about the year of Julius and Caesar as consuls, when the lacklustre partner (ironic, but I've forgotten his name. Bibulus?) was pushed aside to all intent and purposes.

Salve, C. Right indeed.

Here comes Caius Suetonius T., De vita caesarum, Divus Julius, cp. XX, sec II:

 

Unus ex eo tempore omnia in re publica et ad arbitrium administravit, ut nonnulli urbanorum, cum quid per iocum testandi gratia signarent, non Caesar et Bibulo, sed Iulio et Caesare consulibus actum scriberent bis eundem praeponentes nomine atque cognomine, utque vulgo mox ferrentur hi versus:

Non Bibulo quiddam nuper sed Caesare factum est; Nam Bibulo fieri consule nil memini.

 

"From that time on Caesar managed all the affairs of state alone and after his own pleasure; so that sundry witty fellows, pretending by way of jest to sign and seal testamentary documents, wrote "Done in the consulship of Julius and Caesar," instead of "Bibulus and Caesar," writing down the same man twice, by name and by surname. Presently too the following verses were on everyone's lips:

[ASCLEPIADES]

Notice how people joked about the year of Julius and Caesar as consuls, when the lacklustre partner (ironic, but I've forgotten his name. Bibulus?) was pushed aside to all intent and purposes.

Salve, C. Right indeed.

Here comes Caius Suetonius T., De vita caesarum, Divus Julius, cp. XX, sec II:

Like a hundred years after Suetonius, Lucius Claudius Cassius Dio gave us a little variant of the same story.

Here comes Historia Romana, Liber XXXVIII, cp. VIII, sec II:

 

"In most matters Caesar himself proposed, advised, and arranged everything in the city once for all as if he were its sole ruler; hence some facetious persons totally suppressed the name of Bibulus, and in speaking or writing would name Caesar twice, stating that the consuls were Gaius Caesar and Julius Caesar".

[Minerva]

Wasn't it more the acts of those who had political power and those who aspired for it and the weakness of the senate that caused the republic to totter an fall rather than the mere citizens?

 

It isn't so much the senate were weak, it had more to do with the rise of legionary commanders with political aspirations as influential men in their own right, with personal loyalty from their troops rather than to Rome, but also because the senate were more cocerned with their own privilege than serving public duty, thus had effectively lost the support of common people by that stage. .

 

Therefore, while leaving room for the part played by the Roman citizens in letting the Republic fall we can still conclude that the senate was weaker than "those who had political power and those who aspired for it." and that it too was responsible for the Republic's downfall. After all Sulla did fortify the senate's position and yet it couldn't even hold on to that 2nd chance. Or better still blame it on the senate's moral weakness.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Wasn't it more the acts of those who had political power and those who aspired for it and the weakness of the senate that caused the republic to totter an fall rather than the mere citizens?

 

It isn't so much the senate were weak, it had more to do with the rise of legionary commanders with political aspirations as influential men in their own right, with personal loyalty from their troops rather than to Rome, but also because the senate were more cocerned with their own privilege than serving public duty, thus had effectively lost the support of common people by that stage. .

 

Therefore, while leaving room for the part played by the Roman citizens in letting the Republic fall we can still conclude that the senate was weaker than "those who had political power and those who aspired for it." and that it too was responsible for the Republic's downfall. After all Sulla did fortify the senate's position and yet it couldn't even hold on to that 2nd chance. Or better still blame it on the senate's moral weakness.

Salve, Amici.

Interesting points, as "those who had political power and those who aspired for it" were basically proud Senators.

Personally, I consider "moral weakness" to be one of those comfortable terms that can mean whatever you want, from everything to nothing, both in classical and present times.