How can one explain the phenomenon of violence in Roman politics in th

[Minerva]

Starting with the Grachchii down to the fall of the Republic Roman politics is filled with violence. Is there a possible explanation for this apart from the fact that politics and power grabbing generally tends to get nasty throughout history ?

 

Actually i found this in an A/L paper so there's got to be an answer although it seems vague to me. Having gone into voluntary exile from school my only chance of finding an answer would be if some one answers this.

[Maty]

Starting with the Grachchii down to the fall of the Republic Roman politics is filled with violence. Is there a possible explanation for this apart from the fact that politics and power grabbing generally tends to get nasty throughout history ?

 

Actually i found this in an A/L paper so there's got to be an answer although it seems vague to me. Having gone into voluntary exile from school my only chance of finding an answer would be if some one answers this.

 

The basic answer is that Roman politics were always pretty nasty - if you read Livy, it seems that the general mayhem at the end of the Republic was people taking off where they left off before they were distracted by a series of major wars. If you want a definitive discussion, then ask your local librarian to order Andrew Lintott's "Violence in Republican Rome" . The basic argument of the book is that political violence was inherent within Rome's legal and constitutional framework, and only a series of wars - starting with the Samnites and ending with Carthage - kept the Roman elite from killing each other earlier.

 

In the Late Republic a number of other factors were already destabilizing the system and this allowed the violence to get completely out of hand, resulting in proscriptions and civil war.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The basic answer is that Roman politics were always pretty nasty - if you read Livy, it seems that the general mayhem at the end of the Republic was people taking off where they left off before they were distracted by a series of major wars. If you want a definitive discussion, then ask your local librarian to order Andrew Lintott's "Violence in Republican Rome" . The basic argument of the book is that political violence was inherent within Rome's legal and constitutional framework, and only a series of wars - starting with the Samnites and ending with Carthage - kept the Roman elite from killing each other earlier.

 

In the Late Republic a number of other factors were already destabilizing the system and this allowed the violence to get completely out of hand, resulting in proscriptions and civil war.

Salve, Amici.

 

I couldn't agree more with Maty, Lintott and Livius; there had always been violence within the Roman Republic, even if it was contained for long periods.

 

In fact, we can't find any massive popular uprisings at the late Republic analogous to the Secession of the Plebeians at CCLX AUC / 494 bc.

Edited July 5, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

I don't so sure about your notion that there were always violence in Roman politics, take for example the Plebian-Patrician struggle in the early republic - although it's was a bitter one every time that the Plebs "revolt" it was in a passive way: they refuse to conscripted into the army or retire from the city, not once they had thought about attacking the Patricians and nor the Patricians thought about return them to line using violence.

 

The quiet years of the middle republic in which the Roman establishment was in the highest power was due to the opening of the other magistrates to the Plebs, this made the tribune of plebs just the beginning point of the young Plebian Cursus Honorum and thus most tribunes until Tiberius Grachus didn't want to rock the boat and hurt their chances to research the high magistrates.

[Minerva]

Salve, Amici.

 

I couldn't agree more with Maty, Lintott and Livius; there had always been violence within the Roman Republic, even if it was contained for long periods.

 

In fact, we can't find any massive popular uprisings at the late Republic analogous to the Succession of the Plebeians at CCLX AUC / 494 bc.

 

The plebian secessations were "massive popular uprisings" but they were bloodless. Violence in this case refers more to the assasinate your opponents, march on Rome with an army, disregard the constitution and get what you want by hook or by crook in politics. It's not exactly possible to draw a paralel between 494 B.C and 86B.C

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Of course, both Ingsoc and Minerva are right.

We don't have evidence of any bloodshed during the early and middle Republic even remotely similar to the magnitude of the Roman Civil Wars after the Gracchi.

The almost continuous fight for the common survival must certainly have been an unifying factor.

Even so, we have some evidence of relatively frequent Roman vs. Roman violence during the early Republic whenever we have access to minimal information via Livius

Edited July 5, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Minerva]

Agreed, The early Republic had violence and even though I never thought of the possibility of Livy leaving out any victims because he gives all the gory details of Fuffetius' dismemberment, Virginia's death and the like it is an interesting line of speculation. But the question expects an explanation for the violence in Roman politics from the Grachchi down to the fall of the Republic.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Agreed, The early Republic had violence and even though I never thought of the possibility of Livy leaving out any victims because he gives all the gory details of Fuffetius' dismemberment, Virginia's death and the like it is an interesting line of speculation.

I didn't say Livius didn't tell us about any victim or gory detail.

 

I said that in many cases, we can't presume the absolute absence of victims simply because Livius (or any other author, BTW) didn't specifically tell us (ie, the bloodless(?) Secession of the Plebeians of CCLX AUC / 498 bc).

 

 

There's a difference between both statements.

Edited July 5, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

But the question expects an explanation for the violence in Roman politics from the Grachchi down to the fall of the Republic.

If I were you, I would begin here.

 

And as Maty suggested you (post #2), I would read Lintott's book too.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Starting with the Grachchii down to the fall of the Republic Roman politics is filled with violence. Is there a possible explanation for this apart from the fact that politics and power grabbing generally tends to get nasty throughout history ?

 

Actually i found this in an A/L paper so there's got to be an answer although it seems vague to me. Having gone into voluntary exile from school my only chance of finding an answer would be if some one answers this.

Salve, M.

At DCCCLVIII AUC / 105 AD, Publius Cornelius Tacitus had his own theory (Historiae, Liber II, cp.XXXVIII, sec I):

 

Vetus ac iam pridem insita mortalibus potentiae cupido cum imperii magnitudine adolevit erupitque; nam rebus modicis aequalitas facile habebatur. sed ubi subacto orbe et aemulis urbibus regibusve excisis securas opes concupiscere vacuum fuit, prima inter patres plebemque certamina exarsere. modo turbulenti tribuni (Ti.&S. GRACCHUS), modo consules praevalidi, et in urbe ac foro temptamenta civilium bellorum

 

"That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious (Ti.&S. GRACCHUS), at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars".

 

Nineteen centuries later, I think he had a good point.

Edited July 6, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

And now, this is the theory of another Roman historian from the first generation after the end of the Civil Wars;

 

Here comes Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae, Liber II, cp. III, sec II-III:

 

Is fugiens (Ti GRACCHUS) decurrensque clivo Capitolino, fragmine subsellii ictus vitam, quam gloriosissime degere potuerat, immatura morte finivit. Hoc initium in urbe Roma civilis sanguinis gladiorumque impunitatis fuit. Inde ius vi obrutum potentiorque habitus prior, discordiaeque civium antea condicionibus sanan solitae ferro diiudicatae bellaque non causis inita, sed prout eorum merces fuit. Quod haut mirum est: non enim ibi consistunt exempla, unde coeperunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissime evagandi sibi viam faciunt, et ubi semel recto deerratum est, in praeceps pervenitur, nec quisquam sibi putat turpe, quod alii fuit fructuosum.

 

"As Gracchus fled, and was running down the steps which led from the Capitol, he was struck by the fragment of a bench, and ended by an untimely death the life which he might have made a glorious one. This was the beginning in Rome of civil bloodshed, and of the licence of the sword. From this time on right was crushed by might, the most powerful now took precedence in the state, the disputes of the citizens which were once healed by amicable agreements were now settled by arms, and wars were now begun not for good cause but for what profit there was in them. Nor is this to be wondered at; for precedents do not stop where they begin, but, however narrow the path upon which they enter, they create for themselves a highway whereon they may wander with the utmost latitude; and when once the path of right is abandoned, men are hurried into wrong in headlong haste, nor does anyone think a course is base for himself which has proven profitable to others".

[Minerva]

Didn't challenge your view on Livy just said that the possibilty never occured to me because Ancient historians generally tend to exaggerate numbers and incidents than downplay them, Though I suppose they might have done so if it suited their purpose better. As greatful as I am for the suggestion of Lintott's book I just don't live in a place where it- along with many other books- is available.

[Minerva]

At DCCCLVIII AUC / 105 AD, Publius Cornelius Tacitus had his own theory (Historiae, Liber II, cp.XXXVIII, sec I):

 

"That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious (Ti.&S. GRACCHUS), at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars".

 

Nineteen centuries later, I think he had a good point.

 

Thanks! should be able to do something with this one

[ASCLEPIADES]

At DCCCLVIII AUC / 105 AD, Publius Cornelius Tacitus had his own theory (Historiae, Liber II, cp.XXXVIII, sec I):

 

"That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious (Ti.&S. GRACCHUS), at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars".

 

Nineteen centuries later, I think he had a good point.

 

Thanks! should be able to do something with this one

Salve, M.

 

Glad you find it useful.

 

Keep searching the sources, and please inform us on your conclusions.