The Corruption in the late Republic

[ASCLEPIADES]

Maybe this was part of the 'system' anyway - could it be that favours were given such as governorship of a province, whereby the benefactor not only lined his own pockets, but was expected to from the outset? Was Spain not governed like this in republican times?

 

Minerva's right to cite the case of Cato v Galba because it shows that in the tail end of the middle republic, exploitation of the provinces was still regarded as inimical to Roman interests. In contrast, when Cato the Younger made the same argument about Caesar's analogous treatment of the Germans, the charges didn't stick.

 

But PP's point, and I agree with it, is slightly different--that is, exploitation of the provinces spread corruption to Rome.

Salve, Amici.

 

Any comparative evidence of higher Roman Governor's corruption in the Early Empire than in the late Republic?

My impression would be exactly the opposite.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Any comparative evidence of higher Roman Governor's corruption in the Early Empire than in the late Republic?My impression would be exactly the opposite.

 

Does mounting arms against the state itself count? In any case, what's this apropos of?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Does mounting arms against the state itself count?

Maybe if you can be a little more specific.

[Primus Pilus]

Does mounting arms against the state itself count?

Maybe if you can be a little more specific.

 

In the early principate, there were few, excepting the civil war of AD 69. It would seem that imperial oppression following the chaos of the later Republic at least held it's provincial governors somewhat in check for a time, at least militarily. There are plenty of cases of charges and trials against men in authority by the princeps throughout the early empire, but whether these had merit or were cases of imperial paranoia are of course difficult to determine. However, a major difference under the principate, and one of it's advantages, was the professionalizing and centralizing of provincial government. Governors and bureaucrats were no longer rotated on an annual basis with complete autonomy and with a massive transition in personal staff with each one of these changes. Of course, Augustus' reforms including the establishment of direct provincial taxation and the elimination of independent tax farming certainly helped with the reduction in large scale financial corruption.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Does mounting arms against the state itself count?

Maybe if you can be a little more specific.

 

In the early principate, there were few, excepting the civil war of AD 69. It would seem that imperial oppression following the chaos of the later Republic at least held it's provincial governors somewhat in check for a time, at least militarily. There are plenty of cases of charges and trials against men in authority by the princeps throughout the early empire, but whether these had merit or were cases of imperial paranoia are of course difficult to determine. However, a major difference under the principate, and one of it's advantages, was the professionalizing and centralizing of provincial government. Governors and bureaucrats were no longer rotated on an annual basis with complete autonomy and with a massive transition in personal staff with each one of these changes. Of course, Augustus' reforms including the establishment of direct provincial taxation and the elimination of independent tax farming certainly helped with the reduction in large scale financial corruption.

We completely agree.

[ASCLEPIADES]

It was a topos (a sort of cliche) amongst the Romans that they were not the men that previous generations had been.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Did "luxuries" corrupt the Romans of the late republic? I don't think so.

What effect can luxury have on society? Firstly, it makes people less concerned with the welfare of others. If there is no luxury in life, people do tend to be more supportive to each other. Once luxury is available to those who can afford it, then it becomes a quest in itself. People vie for the most obviously luxurious lifestyle and derive some status from it. Since Rome was a society with very stratified status, what could be better than a display of luxury? It would define your wealth and influence visibly. The increasing hedonism of the late republic was noted by Mommsen.

 

First, what a "luxury" is in one era is considered a bare necessity in a more advanced era.

A pointless arguement, since once a luxury is accepted as normal then people seek more for the reasons given above.

 

So now there is a paradox: if a luxury (like bathing or Stoicism) corrupts, by what possible causal mechanism would it corrupt in an earlier age, when it is considered a luxury, but not at a later age, when it is not considered a luxury? The idea makes no sense.

You're thinking in absolute terms. Society views itself according to its current viewpoint, not its past, and therefore the concept of luxury is relative.

 

In my view, the idea that luxuries corrupt is just rustic simple-mindedness that fails to pass even the most elementary logical test.

Then why do thieves break into houses to steal tv's? Why are cars stolen? For profit. The availability of luxury is limited and if offered at a lower price away from the marketplace, there will always be those willing to pay for luxury in order to establish their own comfort and status on the cheap. In that respect, what is so different from Rome? Is the traffic in stolen luxury not evidence of corruption? Do not drug dealers live luxurious lives off the misery of their customers? You can't get much more corrupt than that. Or shall we include the deals done behind closed doors in politics. A gift, and the agreement is made. It seems very logical to me. I live in a town, and thus witness the effects of luxury-seeking first hand. If you want to call me simple-minded you're welcome to, but expect an arguement.

[ASCLEPIADES]

In my view, the idea that luxuries corrupt is just rustic simple-mindedness that fails to pass even the most elementary logical test.

Then why do thieves break into houses to steal tv's? Why are cars stolen? For profit. The availability of luxury is limited and if offered at a lower price away from the marketplace, there will always be those willing to pay for luxury in order to establish their own comfort and status on the cheap. In that respect, what is so different from Rome? Is the traffic in stolen luxury not evidence of corruption? Do not drug dealers live luxurious lives off the misery of their customers? You can't get much more corrupt than that. Or shall we include the deals done behind closed doors in politics. A gift, and the agreement is made. It seems very logical to me. I live in a town, and thus witness the effects of luxury-seeking first hand. If you want to call me simple-minded you're welcome to, but expect an arguement.

Edited December 4, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Not every crime is corruption, and nothing above qualifies:ie., the use of administrative powers by public officials for illegitimate private gain; eg. bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.

I see. So a narrow definition of a word is fine when it suits you? Arguably any society is corrupted by the criminal element within it because there is a danger that such behaviour is accepted as normal in spite of the laws made by that state to stifle it.

 

I vehemently disagree with MPC. He sees luxury in absolute terms when in fact it should be viewed as relative. A few coins is a luxury to a beggar. It takes a great deal more than that to seem luxurious to a wealthy man. In the roman world, society was graded according to wealth. The size of your purse dictated which social class you could aspire to, and since domination of the herd is a primal human instinct the romans could dominate by the application of wealth, since that was the fundamental principle on which their social status revolved upon. In effect, the republic was operating as a form of organised gang, like the mafia, with loyalty and obligation between social classes based on the exchange of wealth (favours and protection too for that matter). This brings up the question of what money is good for. As we have seen, it marks roman status and influence, since a wealthy man can be generous to those below him or bribe his peers if need be. Beyond that, how does roman demonstrate his wealth? If he simply shouts aloud how wealthy he is, he's either a braggart or a liar. So instead, the purchase of luxury provides a visible signal of your wealth. A man with finer houses and contents obviously has more money to spend, and so must be considered someone of higher status. This results in a situation where there is competition for visible signs of wealth, the evidence of luxury. I'm reminded of a roman who committed suicide because his lavish banquets had bankrupted him. We see Crassus becoming extremely wealthy by very dodgy real estate deals for instance. The vast majority of Dacia was kept not because Trajan conquered it, not because the conquest was popular and celebrated, but because it had gold mines. Caesar stepped ashore in Britain not only to gain the kudos of being the first to do so, not only to disrupt foreign support for the conquered gauls, but to seek the valuable metals he had heard were there. Augustus had begun colonising Germania not for imperial reasons, but for tax. He had sent a man known to be greedy to collect it. True, these men often had larger financial obligations, but more often the cash was used to fund their own personal objectives. You might argue that Augustus for instance always made a point of wearing ordinary tunics (despite the fuss he made over wearing toga's). True, he did not display the extravagance that many emperors would. In his case, he did not want to seem superior. He wanted to be seen as Princeps, First Citizen, and whilst he had every intention of retaining control he did not want to alienate the senate by the displays of majesty his great-uncle had. Caesar of course had no such qualms, and since he wanted to be dictator he felt it his right to adopt finery that senators would not consider for fear of being thought pompous. This brings up another side to the arguement. Whereas a man who makes a public display of grandeur will be sneered at by his peers, out of envy or disrespect, it is the private growth of luxury that marks the status of the roman, his ability to conduct financial deals in his own atrium. This private wealth and luxury becomes a desirable asset in its own right. Sulla, during his proscriptions, made sure his followers were rewarded by the 'redistribution' of such luxury, and such redistributions weren't unknown in other periods of roman history either. Men were gotten rid of simply because he had luxury that someone else coveted. Paul said of the romans that "The love of money is the root of all evil" - and that is a definition of corruption at its most basic, for with the accumultion of wealth comes the ability and desire to accumulate luxury. In Rome, as in any other culture, such luxury was bought by the exploitation of others.

 

As for the modern definitions you listed, please find above another one that disagrees.

Edited August 3, 2008 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Not every crime is corruption, and nothing above qualifies:ie., the use of administrative powers by public officials for illegitimate private gain; eg. bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.

I see. So a narrow definition of a word is fine when it suits you?

Edited December 4, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Paul said of the romans that "The love of money is the root of all evil" - and that is a definition of corruption at its most basic, for with the accumultion of wealth comes the ability and desire to accumulate luxury. In Rome, as in any other culture, such luxury was bought by the exploitation of others.

 

As for the modern definitions you listed, please find above another one that disagrees.

.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

A few coins is a luxury to a beggar.

It takes a great deal more than that to seem luxurious to a wealthy man.

In the roman world, society was graded according to wealth.

The size of your purse dictated which social class you could aspire to, and since domination of the herd is a primal human instinct the romans could dominate by the application of wealth, since that was the fundamental principle on which their social status revolved upon.

As we have seen, it marks roman status and influence, since a wealthy man can be generous to those below him or bribe his peers if need be.

Beyond that, how does roman demonstrate his wealth?

If he simply shouts aloud how wealthy he is, he's either a braggart or a liar.

So instead, the purchase of luxury provides a visible signal of your wealth.

A man with finer houses and contents obviously has more money to spend, and so must be considered someone of higher status.

This results in a situation where there is competition for visible signs of wealth, the evidence of luxury.

I'm reminded of a roman who committed suicide because his lavish banquets had bankrupted him.

We see Crassus becoming extremely wealthy by very dodgy real estate deals for instance.

The vast majority of Dacia was kept not because Trajan conquered it, not because the conquest was popular and celebrated, but because it had gold mines.

Caesar stepped ashore in Britain not only to gain the kudos of being the first to do so, not only to disrupt foreign support for the conquered gauls, but to seek the valuable metals he had heard were there.

Augustus had begun colonising Germania not for imperial reasons, but for tax.

He had sent a man known to be greedy to collect it.

This brings up another side to the arguement.

Whereas a man who makes a public display of grandeur will be sneered at by his peers, out of envy or disrespect, it is the private growth of luxury that marks the status of the roman, his ability to conduct financial deals in his own atrium.

This private wealth and luxury becomes a desirable asset in its own right.

 

I'm sorry, but I can see no fundamental difference regarding all these between the purportedly corrupt late Republican Roman society and any other human society I'm aware of, either Roman or barbarian, corrupt or incorrupt, ascendant or decadent.

[ASCLEPIADES]

True, these men often had larger financial obligations, but more often the cash was used to fund their own personal objectives...

Sulla, during his proscriptions, made sure his followers were rewarded by the 'redistribution' of such luxury, and such redistributions weren't unknown in other periods of roman history either. Men were gotten rid of simply because he had luxury that someone else coveted...

As for the modern definitions you listed, please find above another one that disagrees.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

I'm sorry, but I can see no fundamental difference regarding all these between the purportedly corrupt late Republican Roman society and any other human society I'm aware of, either Roman or barbarian, corrupt or incorrupt, ascendant or decadent.

 

Excellent. Briliiant. Correct. The same influences in human behaviour reoccur given similar circumstances. But why make this point? The point I'm making is that the increasing need to keep up with the Jonesii in the presence of increasing affluence is a corrupting influence, and one that hand in hand with increasing hedonism took the republic from an enviroment of public duty to one of selfish gratification. Other than that your arguement seems to be about one of linguistic sophistication and has no relevance to the original thread. Sorry, it just doesn't. Why not try to phrase a positive arguement instead of trying to disassemble mine? After all, you've just posted four times and gotten nowhere.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES