Ancient Rome

[Michael]

One of my all time favorite topics is ancient Rome - either the Republic or the Empire (or the Fall of the Empire or the Eastern-Byzantine Empire).

This thread is for open discussion of Roman history and politics.

I know we have a few hardcore Roman history buffs here, even one or two who have read Gibbon! :D

I will of course stand in defense of my beloved Gracchi, or Marius, the Julio-Claudians and/or Hadrian if anyone wants to pick on them just to get this thread going. For late-Republican politics, my heart is with the populares.

Or alternatively, please feel free to just list who are your favorite Romans and why. :)

[Greendruid]

My only favourite Romans are dead ones ... on a spit ... with a little bit of salt!

[Michael]

My only favourite Romans are dead ones ... on a spit ... with a little bit of salt!
No doubt served with a Caesar Salad and a background of fiddle music?

Oddly enough, nothing makes me think of the Roman Empire more than the sight of a Presidential motorcade. All those lictors on motorcycles clearing the path through the thronging crowds for the Consul is very evocative of Rome.

It is of course a supremely anti-democratic symbol. The term "fascist" of course originates from the symbol of office of the lictors of Rome (who usually carried whips).

[Michael]

I've been thinking about Rome more and more these days (I suppose it might have something to do with having watched "I Claudius" on dvd). It is a wonderful old production of the Robert Graves novel - which of course I had to dig up and re-read just for fun. :)

Anyway, it got me thinking about the Republic (which I find so much more interesting than the Empire) and it strikes me that the murder of Julius Caesar may have been ultimately ironic.

That is to say, Caesar was murdered in the Senate by a bunch of die-hard republicans seeking to preserve/restore the republic. Yet the very act of killing Caesar on the floor of the Senate itself is the ultimate 'death of the republic' and made imperial rule an absolute certainty.

Roman aristocratic culture would expect and respect 'revenge' and Caesar's name was very powerful and popular. Caesar's heir and Caesar's friends would be honor-bound by the same principles that supposedly inspired the Senatorial conspirators to seek revenge upon them. The conspirators had to know and expect this (or were fools entirely). They had already lost every political and military battle, yet they persisted.

I believe that it was possible that if Caesar was not murdered, but was able to finish his career, the republic might have survived and/or prospered after his death. I do believe that Caesar could have been 'first man in Rome' and perhaps that alone (no crown) - Rome had several of those previously (Marius and Sulla in particular) and the Republic survived.

Rome needed an overhaul of its archaic political system. The system of government invented to rule a city wasn't capable of handling the wealth and power of a vast empire. The conservative faction in the Senate prevented any substantial reforms, thus dooming the republic to imperial rule. The earlier careers of Marius and Sulla demonstrate the 'non-functionality' of the Senate rule over the empire and the immediate necessity of 'extra-constitutional' political rulers.

But Caesar, maybe, just maybe, might have been the man to reform the Roman electoral or land system problem - if he had lived long enough. That's ultimately what the Roman political 'office' of 'dictator' was all about to begin with - an extra-constitutional office to be invoked in times of emergency to deal with a crisis. Once the crisis was over, normal government can and did resume (in times past).

If Caesar was able to do something like that (use his dictator powers to reform the Roman electoral and land system) and then retire as 'first man in Rome', I think it possible the Republic could have survived. Caesar's introduction of Goths & Celts into the Roman Senate was brilliant and far-sighted - alas that the republic died with Julius.

Admittedly, I have previously argued that the careers of Marius and Sulla 'prove' that the republic was already doomed before Caesar and that it was only a matter of time before some other similar figure would rise up and became dictator. I don't believe that my arguments here are entirely contradictory. :)

[Non Sequitur]

I don't really blame the Romans for giving up on the republic and embracing the empire with Augustus. Sulla and Marius started pattern of Civil War and unrest that lasted until Octavian comes along and says "I can end all the violence and give you peace." That's would have been a very attractive offer.

[Michael]

I don't really blame the Romans for giving up on the republic and embracing the empire with Augustus. Sulla and Marius started pattern of Civil War and unrest that lasted until Octavian comes along and says "I can end all the violence and give you peace." That's would have been a very attractive offer.

But Octavian only promised (and delivered) the exact same thing as Marius and Sulla did. That is "peace under their rule". After Octavian, Rome suffered the same amount of intercene civil war under the Empire as it had under the late republic. Same as after the death of Marius and the death of Sulla.

The reason for this was the land problem. So long as Rome had the 'land problem' she was going to suffer civil wars (and Rome suffered lots of them every time an Emperor or '1st man' died).

[Michael]

I don't really blame the Romans for giving up on the republic and embracing the empire with Augustus. Sulla and Marius started pattern of Civil War and unrest ...

Oh yes... I must object here! :D

Marius and Sulla rose to power only because of the unrest in the last century of the Republic. They were an 'effect' not a 'cause' of the unrest.

The vast wealth that accrued to Rome in the preceeding century due to successful conquest vastly enriched the patrician and equestrian classes of Rome. Oddly enough, the plebian class (commoners) who supplied the soldiers were the ones who were impoverished by the process and became a landless mob in Rome.

The military reforms undertaken by Marius were absolutely necessary due to the elimination of the petty land-owning class of yeoman farmers which supplied the actual soliders of the Roman army (which had property requirements in order to join). This put Rome on the road to mercenary legions and that was the end of Roman military supremacy.

Btw, for trivia, I'll mention that one of the key elements in the rise of the non-patrician Marius was his marriage to member of the patrician Julius family, making him an uncle to Julius Caesar. Small world the Roman Republic was. ;)