Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Ingsoc

Equites
  • Content Count

    546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ingsoc


  1. It is true that he started it on his own, but it is also true that Britain and France bought this upon himself. Because of the Versailles treaty I have no doubt that if Hitler had not come, then someone else would have. In reality everyone has to take a bit of the blame. Although Hitler was a great part of it.

     

    A common misconception. The German state was only founded in the late 19th century and the German always had the feeling that although they are a great they are being robbed from their proper place "under the sun" as one of the world greatest imperial powers. As Germany lost the war this didn't happened and this was the obvious reason they were upset, regardless of the peace treaty.

     

    If there anything to be said against the the allied of WWI was that they didn't go all the way, if they would invaded and conquered Germany the Germans would never thought that their army was never defeated and was "stab in the back" by Jews and Marxists and maybe they even lost their imperial lust just as post-WWII Germany had.


  2. ..the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs...

    Infamous in what way?

     

    You might remember that he organize gangs that fought in the street and terrorize political enemies and that after his death his supporters burn down the Senate house!

     

    In short, in the late Republic, the age anarchy and demagogues, Clodius is the worst example of them both.


  3. 2) Cult of Caligula. During Caligulas reign, they had a main "Cult of Caligula" that ended up mainly dying out after his death, but some carried it on. I can not find a lot of information in and out of books that I would like to on this topic. I am trying to find out more in depth information about what went on inside of the cult, how long it actually went on (estimated) etc.

     

    In the eastern part of the empire it's was common to worship the emperor as a god. the tradition on giving rulers divine honors started well before Alexander conquests, after the Hellenistic kingdoms consolidate themselves they adopted this practice which went with the Roman emperors after the annexation of the east. Caligula, unlike his predecessor Tiberius, had great enthusiasm for this practice.

     

    I've never heard that his cult continued after his death, what is your source for that?


  4. The fact that the poor did not gain high office does not mean that they were powerless or that only the rich got elected.

    There was a huge amount of prejudice against "blue-collars" in all societies but modern and speaking of their access to power it's anachronistic.

    Having a good education was highly important in Rome and that did not meant only reading and writing but knowing greek and rhetoric as well and education was not cheap. We see this thing in many modern democracies as well with a sort of monopoly on power in some countries by people graduated from Ivy League, Oxbridge or ENA.

    Some wealth was necessary for a political career as was the case in most republics in history. And as usual political power was the base of wealth.

    There are many examples of roman politicians that were not very wealthy in the beginning but gain power and wealth during their political career. Cicero came from a family of provincial equites and his lawyer skills made him among the most powerful people of his day.

     

    The ordo equester weren't blue collar workers, far from it they were rich as much (and in many time more) than Senators. The fact that "New Men" like Cicero came from the Italian cities and had no ancestors in the Senate doesn't mean they were poor either.


  5. I simply can't understand what would you require to consider any regime as a plutocracy; from Merriam-Webster:

    1 : government by the wealthy

    2 : a controlling class of the wealthy

    The Roman Republican nobiles widely fitted both acceptations.

     

    Did they? Seems to me that there were plenty of nobiles that--far from being wealthy--were saddled with so much debt that it would take the wealth of a whole nation (*cough* Gaul! *cough*) to pay it off.

     

    Good point, however you should note that nobiles without money (such as Sulla, Caesar, Catillina) had some difficulty reaching the higher offices.


  6. Here is the entry about him from the Brill's New Pauly:

    [i 2] P. Cato, C. People's tribune in 56 BC, affiliated with Clodius [i 4]

     

    Grandson(?) of C. P. [i 1] Cato; a turbulentus adulescens ('turbulent young man', Non. 385 M.) in the troubles after 60 BC. Affiliated to the triumvir P. Licinius [i 11] Crassus and P. Clodius [i 4] Pulcher (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,1,2) in 56 during his tribunate, P. turned against L. Cornelius [i 54] Lentulus Spinther and Pompey [i 3], who had already been attacked (Cass. Dio 39,15,3 f.; Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 1,2,15; 2,3,1; 3 f.). The defection of his gladiator bodyguard to T. Annius [i 14] Milo was an embarrassing setback for P. (ibid. 2,5,3). Subsequently there was an rapprochement with Pompey, who benefited, together with Crassus, from the delay, caused by P., of the consular elections for 55 (Liv. Per. 105). Reconciliation with his previous adversary saved P. from prosecutions for his conduct as tribune (Cic. Att. 4,15,4; 16,5) and may have won him the praetorship in 55 (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 3,4,1). MRR 2,209; 3,169 f.


  7. I do agree that the perception of the Plebians as a class and as the universally poor masses of Rome is quite incorrect. The landless poor are more correctly referred to as the Proletarii or the capite censi. There were many wealth and powerful Plebian families and perhaps the distinction between Plebian and Patrician nobility is rather like the British aristocratic families whose lineage goes back to, for example, the days of the Tudors and those wealthy and powerful families enobled because of a member's contribution to commerce or politics, the latter being the Plebian equivalent.

     

    I think you got a bit confuse, their actually two definitions to what a Pleb is, the first as you said is the Patrician-Plebian division that determine by who was your father, this definition lost relevance is the end of the early Republic as the Plebs got equal rights. The second is what I've mention, the division into three categories (Senators, Equestrians, Plebs) based on one property.

     

    Actually, what Polybius explicity stated in his panegyric on the Roman Constitution was that it was not democratic.. nor monarchic, nor oligarchic, but a peculiar fourth way with the best of each world; however, as the aristocratic Achaean that he was, Polybius betrayed himself some lines below, stating that the aristocratic Roman constitution was a significant factor over the more democratic Carthaginians:

    "Consequently the multitude at Carthage had already acquired the chief voice in deliberations; while at Rome the senate still retained this; and hence, as in one case the masses deliberated and in the other the most eminent men, the Roman decisions on public affairs were superior, so that although they met with complete disaster, they were finally by the wisdom of their counsels victorious over the Carthaginians in the war".

     

    The idea of mixed constitution (Miktea Politea) as the ideal state of affairs was a very old Greek idea. AS for Polybius one should ask how well did he describe the Roman political system, for example he mention only one people assembly instead of the three that existed.


  8. I think the view of the Plebs as a "class" is anachronistic. The division to order in Rome was based on your Census, a minimum of 1 million sestertius + membership in the senate and you were a member of the Senators order, a minimum of 400,000 sestertius and you were a member of the Equestrian order and all the rest were classified as Plebs. Obviously there were a wide variety among them - farmers, artisans, unskilled workers, etc. so I don't think we could call them a "class" in the modern way, certainly not in a Marxist way. I have not yet seen any evidence to "class consciousness" among the Plebs.

     

    No doubt that since the Marian reforms military service gave political power to the ordinary soldier, the question is if this was really what they were after when enlisted and during the service? as you pointed out the main motive for enlistment was poverty and since the soldiers always supported some aristocrat and never wanted one of them to take over I doubt that what they want was a way to express political power, usually their mindset is that "our general is such a great guy and we shouldn't let them mistreat him".


  9. In fact, she can't do that; please check it out. Plainly, the United Kingdom is a democracy and their Kings are ruled by laws.

     

    In Britain and in any other place of the word, now and ever, a law has to be decreed previous to be enforced.

    The British Common Law means law created and refined by judges, rather than through executive action or legislative statutes (like in the Civil Law systems).

    "Custom" is not law by itself, in Britain or anywhere else; custom may be used as a precedent for a law.

     

    Who was supposed to define what was going "against the spirit of politics"? Let say Publius Satyreius or Lucius Rufus, TG's assasins?

    If the Roman legislation had any distinctive trait, it was undoubtedly the protection of even the lesser citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power (ie, not backed by a juridical decision) from even the highest magistrates; just remember the Lex Portia.

     

    If 133 BC was the point of no return in the way to the Civil Wars, as most if not all Roman historians believed, people like Satyreius, Rufus and their cronies were to be blamed and certainly not their victim.

     

    As far as I know the British monarch was never stripped by law from his powers, there just a tradition that he never use them contrary to public opinions. but I could be wrong about this.

     

    The things that goes against the spirit of politics is the disregard to centuries old traditions on which the Roman Republic managed itself, in the case of Ti. Gracchus it's was his disregard of the Senate, his election for the tribunship for the second time and the disregard the veto of his fellow tribune by removing his from office. I'm sure all those things cause more panic than his agrarian law and in turn brought his opposition itself to disregard the customs of the Republic.

     

    I think MS is talking about HH Scullard's A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC; the author explained in the Introduction section:

    "During the period covered by this volume their success was unbounded, but before the end a change is perceptible. Foreign influences begin to mine the moral qualities and the ancestral discipline of the Roman people, lust of power at times superseded desire for law and order, foreign conquest appeared to many as a source of profit, the institutions of a city-state were strained to a breaking-point in an attempt to govern a far-flung Empire, the revolutionary era ushered by the Gracchi was approaching and the fabric of the Republic began to torter".

     

    The issue of the corruption in the late Republic was discussed here.


  10. You could say the same thing about any defeated politician in anytime. "Ideals" and "politician" in the same phrase is an oxymoron, at least regarding the Roman Republic.

     

    But Ti. Gracchus wasn't simply "defeated", he was murdered. As Plutarchus write some before him try to pass agrarian laws but in fear of the opposition they backed down, Ti. Gracchus didn't even as all his political allies abandon him and this exactly the thing that make the difference between idealist and opportunist.

     

    Under such logic, any innovation would be against "custom", and any government would be entitled to punish it even more than "simply" breaking the law like, let say, killing a magistrate... sorry but I simply can't see any reason to believe the Roman Republic was all that fascist.

     

    British and Roman legal systems are certainly dissimilar, but in any system the rules have to be defined in advance; you can't simply determine in hindsight that any action was illegal after all... unless we are talking about an Orwell's Animal Farm.

     

    "Custom" or "Mos Maiorum" is a source for the law, not the law itself. Before being enforced, any law must have been decreed; simple as that.

     

    An innovation that goes against the "spirit" of politics would certainly be illegal even if the dry law say it's legal. Take for example Britain, it's customary that the monarch appoint the head of the largest party in Parliament to the office of PM but she has no obligation to as strictly speaking it's "her majesty government" and the queen could appoint any citizen she like to this office, but if she do it's would be describe as "illegal" by most British because it's goes against the establish custom.


  11. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In any case, I don't think we have to believe TG's intentions were different from any of his nobile pairs: money and power.

     

    Yes, you could say the same thing about any politician in anytime. I think the fact that Ti. Gracchus stick to his ideals to the bitter end, even as he knew that all his political allies has abandon him show he was more of an idealist than power hungry.

     

    Legal statements are categorical; it is or it isn't. If TG's election was "officially legal", it was Legal; period. The best evidence is that TG was not prosecuted for his actions; he was simply murdered. He was not acting against the "Roman state"; as an active part of that state, what he shut down was his opposition, entirely by legal methods. That's the way any more or less democratic state is supposed to run.

     

    In any country there is unwriting laws on how public figures should behave (we call it "custom", the Romans call them "Mos Maiorum"), in fact in some states like Britain the entire government system is base on customs. By disregarding the Senate, his fellow Tribune and the wide use of his veto right Ti. Gracchus didn't break any laws but he did break century old customs that dictate the "rules" of the political game, in my opinion this much worst that simply breaking the law since it's much harder to stabilize a system of customs than a system of laws.

     

    From Sallust onwards, virtually all relevant Roman historians agreed with your final statement: if 133 BC was so crucial a year, it was fundamentally because a magistratus was murdered as a result of political disagreement. TG was the victim, not the assassin. It is perfectly clear that his opponents were not particularly worried for the welfare of the Republic.

     

    As the ancient Romans had a poor comprehension of sociological issues, it is understandable that they can attribute the fate of the World to the caprice of a fistful of characters.

    We know better than that; the political instability of the late II century BC was largely due to complex social conflicts that were for real, with or without the Gracchi.

    As far as we can tell, had the senate been able to satisfactorily dealt with the agrarian problem, Caesar and Augustus would in all likelihood never have a chance to get the autocratic power.

     

    I agree with you, to a certain point. Obviously Ti. Gracchus actions didn't take place in a vacuum and were result of social changes in Rome, however quit often the underprivileged need a leader and usually this leader come from the aristocracy, if it's wasn't Ti. Gracchus in 133 BC who took upon himself the case of the declining agrarian land owners the outbreak of the problem would not have occurred in 133 BC but in another time (30, 50 or 100 years later, who could tell?...).


  12. Could you explain why he think that? to me the transition from the Republic to the Principate was mainly due to internal political reasons that destabilize the Republic form of government. In 146 BC Rome has shown that she is the supreme power at the Mediterranean coast but this event had no internal political effect.

     

    I think that Tiberius Gracchus term as Tribune in 133 BC was the crucial year for the Roman Republic:

     

    It's the first time a Roman magistratus bypass the authority of the Senate and cancel his colleague veto right (by ejecting Marcus Octavius from office) thus Gracchus harm two princibles that were at the heart of the Roman Republican system.

     

    Gracchus also use his veto to "shut down" the Roman state with his veto powers and his illegal election (even if it's was officially legal it's was still against the Mos Maiorum) has shown that the Tribunship could became a powerful tool to dominate the state.

     

    And the worst thing in my eyes is the fact that in this year, for the first time in the history of the Republic, a magistratus was murdered as a result of political disagreement. I think that the peaceful ability to solve internal political disagreement is the basic requirement of stable government.

     

    While I tend to believe Gracchus had more good intentions in his action than bad, the damage he done to the proper conduct of the Republic set a very negative precedent.


  13. I question calling Hadrian one of the most extravagant; wasn't there value to most of his expenditures? Tivoli may be an exception, but not as a world beating extravagance. BTW see "heart of italy" aerial documentary on hi def Smithsonian tv channel, which has one of the longest sequences on Hadrians villa from the air. Like most of their programs, it's a bit unpolished, and in this case they chose a hazy/smoggy day to depict Italy from the air.

     

    Hadrian extensive travels in the provinces put an excessive expenditures burden on the local economies.


  14. One of Augustus most notable achievements was "restoring the republic" as a pseudo-republic system that disguise his monarchist rule. However it's seem that the idea of "restoring the republic" was taken from his bitter enemy Antonius.

     

    "Lucius made a speech to the citizens, saying that he should visit punishment upon Octavian and Lepidus for their lawless rule, and that his brother would voluntarily resign his share of it and accept the consulship, exchanging an unlawful magistracy for a lawful one, a tyranny for the constitution of their fathers." (Appianus, BC, 5.30)

     

    [Lucius Antonius:]"I undertook this war against you, not in order to succeed to the leadership by destroying you but to restore to the country the patrician government which had been subverted by the triumvirate, as not even yourself will deny. For when you created the triumvirate you acknowledged that it was not in accordance with the law, but you established it as something necessary and temporary because Cassius and Brutus were still alive and you could not be reconciled to them. When they, who had been the head of the faction, were dead, and the remainder, if there were any left, were bearing arms, not against the state, but because they feared you, and moreover the five years' term was running out, I p449demanded that the magistracies should be revived in accordance with the custom of our fathers, not even preferring my brother to my country, but hoping to persuade him to assent upon his return and hastening to bring this about during my own term of office. If you had begun this reform you alone would have reaped the glory." (Appianus, BC, 5.42)

     

    "He twice thought of restoring the republic; first immediately after the overthrow of Antonius, remembering that his rival had often made the charge that it was his fault that it was not restored; and again in the weariness of a lingering illness, when he went so far as to summon the magistrates and the senate to his house, and submit an account of the general condition of the empire." (Suentonius, Life of Augustus, 28)

     

    "Such was the strength of the contestants. As for Antonius, he on his part swore to his own soldiers that he would admit no truce in the war he wage, and promised in addition that within two months after his victory he would relinquish his office and restore to the senate and the people all its authority" (Cassius Dio, 50.7)

     

    It's another evidence that Augustus and Antonius weren't much different in their political ideas, it's also discredit the theory of the "eastern monarchy".

×