Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

fonss

Plebes
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About fonss

  • Rank
    Tiro
  1. I was wondering if anyone of you bright heads could provide me with some information of the newest (20-30 years back and uptill now) research on the clientela's impact in relation to the fall of the republic. I know that Ronald Syme, in 1930 (sic!), argued that the fall was due to small factions within the roman nobility fighting each other with still larger cliens-armies. The "guy" with the most cliens finally won the day and ultimately it all ended up with the super-patronus Augustus - when he had effectively overtaken all roman citizens as his own private clientela. Another historian (Christian Meier) argues against this by claiming that such small nobility-factions actually never existed (or that we haven't got any evidence therefore). The fall is instead explained by the failing of the roman aristocracy to face real political problems due to the "hereditary" nature of the magistrature. Political problems caused the civil wars (the whole land discussion) - not the beneficium/officium regulated behavior of the ordinary roman citizen. What is your opinion on all this, and do you have any new research to offer? (I have read all I could but now I'm forced to turn my attention to other business - that is why I ask).
  2. fonss

    Why Did The Roman Republic Fall?

    But the last sentence is the issue under dispute, specifically whether the Hannibalic war necessitated the creation of private armies. If Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar had not provided land to their veterans, their veterans would still have left service far richer than they had entered it. These soldiers had been paid for their service; they were given leave to rape and pillage the provinces at their leisure; and their commanders grew monstrously rich from their campaigns. So, there's no point in pretending that the soldiers would have faced starvation upon leaving the service. Moreover, in every case, the commanders you mentioned could have patiently attempted to purchase land out of their own purse for their soldiers. But they didn't. They relied on confiscation, proscription, and civil war to evacuate speedily those Roman lands they wished to disburse to their veterans. In short, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar came to view Roman property holders in the same way that they learned to view non-Roman property holders--as de-humanized fodder for their own ambition. Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar weren't frustrated social workers--they were thugs who were accustomed to taking what they wanted, rights be damned. What is the relevance of the Hannibalic war to these affairs? The connection seems very slight to me. If I'm misunderstanding you, please let me know. The soldiers may have been far richer when exiting service, but they still had to eat and drink ten or twenty years ahead. Ager publicus was not something that you could purchase (not with a soldiers salary anyway) - it was lent to you by the republic and the republic in return demanded a small yearly fee. The triumvires relied on proscription and confiscation because there was no land to buy - most of the ager publicus was already on the hands of the allies of Rome. This is exactly why Pompey, through Caesar, had the tribunate propose a landlaw in Pompeys favor. The relevance of the second punic war to these affais? Well, I never wrote that the pillaging of Hannibal necessitated the fall of the republic - only that it catalysed the process. A great portion of the italic farmland had been destroyed and cremated by Hannibals soldiers, and returning from the final battle the roman/italian peasant only saw scorged earth. At the same time the price for grain had dropped quite a deal due to increasing competition from abroad - most respectively Egypt. With no other alternatives (as I wrote before: olives and caddle was expensive and needed starting capital due to the long wait for revenues) and in conjunction with the still richer aristocracy - who needed something to invest their capital in, since there was a law forbidding senators from taking up commerce - the roman and italian peasant had a natural strong urge to sell to the highest bidder. This was the beginning of the landless soldier and the proletarii. I'm not claiming that the landless soldier wouldn't have come to be without the second ounic war, but that war certainly did not make things better.
  3. fonss

    Why Did The Roman Republic Fall?

    The expansion of the numbers of quaestors meant that more (ambitious) people had to share the same piece of cake - hence competition rose. I do not claim that Caesar crossing the Rubicon in 49 was a direct consequence of these structural changes, but I do claim that it didn't make perspectives for the republic any better. Sulla needed land for his 120.000 veterans (and indeed provided all of them with land), Pompey needed land for his soldiers, and Caesar was no excpetion to this. A soldiers loyalty to his general was, in he late republic, unmistakenly linked to the generals capability to provide pension (land) and wages. All this was a direct consequence of economic and social changes that happened after the second punic war.
  4. fonss

    Why Did The Roman Republic Fall?

    Firstly, english is not my native language so bear with me. The expansion of quaestors to a total of 20 lowered the already competitive roman individual the chance of reaching consulship and thereby (possibly) nobility. The tribunes were at the same time barred from climbing the cursus which, against my thesis, should cancel out the effect. The tribunal institution was, however, eventually restored by Pompey and Crassus. As the benefits from succesful warfare got higher and higher the competition amongst ambitious roman politicians rose to an alarming level. This should not be seen as neither a necessary (as I mistakenly wrote earlier) nor a sufficient condition for the creation of dictators - but surely we can agree that it is very plausible that changes like this one catalysed the creation of a man like Caesar. I do tie (albeit indirectly) the upcoming of professional armies with the Second Punic War on the basis that this war was a major cause for the rise of the landless proletariat residing in Rome - and to a lesser degree in the countryside. Hannibal had effectively burned and pillaged the italian countryside which in return meant that many returning peasants had to rebuild (with the perspective that grain was practically worthless due to import from Sicily and more important Egypt). Olives and caddle was expensive and since many from the senatus ordo had enriched themselves beyond believe from the ongoing wars the choice was simple - sell! Favonius Cornelius took the words out of my mouth.
  5. fonss

    Why Did The Roman Republic Fall?

    Surely Caesars rule of power wasn't necessary for the fall of the republic. It may have been sufficient but so only because of various structural changes in the cursus honorum from the the reign of Sulla in conjunction with the possibility of creating your own professional armies due to the landproblems ultimatley caused by the second punic war. These factors must surely have been the necessary condition for the downfall of the republic. If Caesar had fought his gallic wars before the time of the Gracchi (or at least before the second punic war) he would never had have the opportunity to bypass the constitution as he so blatantly did in 49.
×