tflex Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) The Roman republic was too corrupt and too large to support or defend itself. What is your evidence that the Roman republic at the time of Sulla was too corrupt or too large to defend itself? The best proof is as Rome grew from a city state and new provinces were constantly being acquired, centralized power collapsed and was fragmented to a point that the weakened system did not have the capacity or reach to control or discipline its provincial governors and military generals who acted on their own behalf with complete disregard to the traditional decisions makers such as the assemblies and the senate. How can a divided nation defend itself against increasing enemies. All you have to do is look at the instability of power starting from the period of the Gracchi brothers to the fall of the republic. A strong system does not allow its own citizens, politicians, governors and military leaders to successfully conspire against it which they did on several occasions. Around 133BC after the Gracchi brothers were killed, the republic was only a republic by name, elections were marked by murder and the opposition was disposed off, reforms were blocked not through legal means but by assassination. Furthermore, the republic was ill-equipped to deal with corrupt governors that opposed Rome itself when their interests were threatened by the system and military generals were beyond control. Can you imagine the victorious Eisenhower and his army marching on Washington DC after world war 2 to get rid of the Truman administration and forcing the senate to declare him dictator of America, that would have been ridiculous, I wonder what kind of a message that would have sent to the Russians? With Rome, this was the awful reality; Sulla, Marius and Caesar, the republic could do nothing to stop them. The emperors were the answer to the republic Edited January 27, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The Roman republic was too corrupt and too large to support or defend itself.What is your evidence that the Roman republic at the time of Sulla was too corrupt or too large to defend itself? The best proof is as Rome grew from a city state and new provinces were constantly being acquired, centralized power collapsed and was fragmented to a point that the weakened system did not have the capacity or reach to control or discipline its provincial governors and military generals who acted on their own behalf with complete disregard to the traditional decisions makers such as the assemblies and the senate. How can a divided nation defend itself against increasing enemies. First, nothing in the (run-on) sentence above even mentions corruption. So am I right you've retreated from this position then? Second, the argument doesn't support your case. It's post-hoc reasoning. You've said that after the republic gained territory, it fell. So what? After I started my car, my telephone rang; that doesn't mean that starting my car caused my telephone to ring. Try again. All you have to do is look at the instability of power starting from the period of the Gracchi brothers to the fall of the republic.... Around 133BC after the Gracchi brothers were killed, the republic was only a republic by name, elections were marked by murder and the opposition was disposed off, reforms were blocked not through legal means but by assassination. You do realize you're talking about a period of 90 years, don't you? During this 90 years, how many consuls were there and how many had their opponents murdered? If you can even name 10 (only about 5% of the total number of consuls during this period), I'll concede your point. But you can't, so you should really admit you're wrong. While you're at it, make a list of the legislation that was passed during this period of time (there's a partial list on this site). After you look it up, you'll see that reforming legislation was moving hard and fast from the era of the Gracchi to the fall of the republic. So, again, you're simply wrong about all reforms being blocked--reforms were being passed all the time. Furthermore, the republic was ill-equipped to deal with corrupt governors that opposed Rome itself when their interests were threatened by the system and military generals were beyond control. Can you imagine the victorious Eisenhower and his army marching on Washington DC after world war 2 to get rid of the Truman administration and forcing the senate to declare him dictator of America, that would have been ridiculous, I wonder what kind of a message that would have sent to the Russians? Ever hear of Douglas MacArthur? Read "American Caesar" sometime, but then discuss it someplace else. This is a Roman history site, and we don't do modern parallels on this forum. With Rome, this was the awful reality; Sulla, Marius and Caesar, the republic could do nothing to stop them. So the republic is to blame because it didn't stop the enemies of the republic? That's as good of an example of blaming the victim as I've ever heard. It's logically equivalent to blaming a woman for being raped. The emperors were the answer to the republic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Yet more from M. Gelzer's Caesar....I think it presents irrefutable secondary source evidence of some of what was wrong with the oligarchic administration. Just as his agrarian law showed a way out of Italy's social crisis, so he now attacked another cancarous growth in the oligarchic administration of empire, the gradual destruction of the provinces through the depredations of Roman governors. On one point all Romans were more or less agreed: the provinces existed to be exploited for the benefit of the Roman people. But under the prevailing system the goose that laid the golden eggs would not last forever. The members of the oligarchy regarded it as their prerogative to cover the enormously increased financial demands of political life with their takings as provincial governors. Strict control could prevent this activity from becoming intolerable, but mutual conivance happens to be the traditional weakness of oligarchy. Popular policies, which had emerged with the Gracchi, only worsened the situation with the one-sided favouritism shown to the knights---the public tax-farming companies and Roman finaciers sucked the blood from the provinces no less than the senators---and with the senseless increase in electoral expenditure, not to mention the fact that the senatorial representatives of this party behaved not a whit better in the provinces. There were, however, some honourable members of the nobility, from whose ranks there came in 149 the first law against the taking of money by magistrates, which provided for the trial of this offence before a special court. This was followed by two laws with stricter regulations, passed in the interests of the equestrian order. Next Sulla's law was effective until 59. Caesar now produced a careful and very comprehensive revision of the whole subject, the lex Iulia repetundarum, which remained in force from then on thoughout the whole Imperial period. The law contained exact definitions of the offences and the classes of persons that came within its scope. In addition to the magistrates, the senatorial members of their staff, in particular their legati, were included; further also senatorial jurymen, plaintiffs and witnesses who took bribes. The law went on to lay down a new procedure for the conduct of trials and, in connection with its main theme, provided a mass of regulations for provincial administration. The lex Iulia contained nothing new in principle, but ti was drafted more precisely and strictly than its predecessors and so formed an excellent instrument for the supervision of the senatorial order. Seen from the standpoint of the empire as a whole, a lex reptundarum which ignored the knights was decidedly a half-measure, however much it demonstrated its author's mastery in the administrative field. Even at the time, it met with the approval of the experts---and of Cato---and, as far as we know, was adopted by the people without opposition. Edited January 27, 2006 by P.Clodius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grows on trees Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Sulla was a great General and a much needed General during his time. While I personally think Marius's reforms to the army were ingenious, I fee that Sulla had much better feel for how the army should be run. He was by far one of the more skilled Generals on the battle field, and many of his tactics were revolutionary. However outside of being A General, I think he was a poor statesman. Not in the sense that her didn't know what he was doing, but in the sense that many of his actions put Rome in a postion where its basic beliefs as a republic were comprimised, and thus the powers of the Senate greatly weakend. Not so much the actuall power of the senate, but more their ability to engage in politics. Baisically what I mean is after Sulla the senate became much more afraid to use its powers in practice, because of fear and a forced lost of identity. They became to relient on a central figure with more power. Thus his actions led to the ability of Pompey, Ceasar, Octavian, and Antony to push the senate around through fear. That was never the intention of the Roman Republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) First, nothing in the (run-on) sentence above even mentions corruption. So am I right you've retreated from this position then? I already mentioned corruption in my previous post, electoral intimidation through assassination is a form of corruption. You must have missed it or just ignored it. Second, the argument doesn't support your case. It's post-hoc reasoning. You've said that after the republic gained territory, it fell. So what? After I started my car, my telephone rang; that doesn't mean that starting my car caused my telephone to ring. Try again. It's more like after starting your car for a few years it collapses. You do realize you're talking about a period of 90 years, don't you? During this 90 years, how many consuls were there and how many had their opponents murdered? If you can even name 10 (only about 5% of the total number of consuls during this period), I'll concede your point. But you can't, so you should really admit you're wrong. While you're at it, make a list of the legislation that was passed during this period of time (there's a partial list on this site). After you look it up, you'll see that reforming legislation was moving hard and fast from the era of the Gracchi to the fall of the republic. So, again, you're simply wrong about all reforms being blocked--reforms were being passed all the time. I'm sorry but the consuls were weak and ineffectual rulers in the late republic, they should have been overthrown more often, it might have done some good.. Ever hear of Douglas MacArthur? Read "American Caesar" sometime, but then discuss it someplace else. This is a Roman history site, and we don't do modern parallels on this forum. It's a good example though, thats what matters. So the republic is to blame because it didn't stop the enemies of the republic? That's as good of an example of blaming the victim as I've ever heard. It's logically equivalent to blaming a woman for being raped. Comparing the Roman republic's inability to stop Sulla, Marius and Caesar to the rape of a woman is ridicolous and laughable. Of all the places to have to make this argument, I'd never have guessed it would be on a thread defending Sulla! Sulla was corrupt and a murder but no more than his contemporaries were. At least he had a plan and a vision. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the people who wanted more of the same. Defenders of the Republic enjoyed having a weak system in place because they personally benefited from it. They hated Sulla and Caesar because they both belted them back in line. Edited January 28, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Truly remarkable that some of the most consistent defenders of Caesar are also apologists for Sulla. Can we not appreciate both men for their respective abilities, as well as simply being interesting characters in their own right, regardless of their politics? Despite our love for Roman history and politics, I don't think anyone on this board takes the politics of the late Republic as personally as you do, Cato. Perhaps we therefor approach the subject matter from a different perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) I've read a few things about Sulla in various articles, and i've also read above comments and agree with certain points of view: At the time of Sulla, Rome needed reform, albeit perhaps not at the price of murdering countless people that he saw as hindering his ambitions. He established a precedent, however, that would later be confirmed by many generals as a sure path to power if successful; that of marching on Rome. Later, Julius Caesar marched on Rome and gained power, many years later during the crisis of the first century A.D., one Vespasian marched on Rome and became Emperor etc. etc, and thus it was shown that the government or ruler of Rome could be overthrown with a strong army and a strong leader. Perhaps this precedent, which would later on in Roe's history cause much civil war, is indirectly one of the worst legacies Sulla left Rome. Perhaps we therefor approach the subject matter from a different perspective. i.e. an Impartial perspective? (Joking) Edited January 28, 2006 by Tobias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yet more from M. Gelzer's Caesar....I think it presents irrefutable secondary source evidence of some of what was wrong with the oligarchic administration. The lex Iulia was one of the most admirable pieces of legislation in the history of the republic. If I ever got around to say something good about any of the populares, this would top my list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philalexandros Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 cato : The emperors were the answer to the republic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 The emperors were the answer to the republics failure , as tflex mentioned. Prove it. Make a list of the "failures of the republic" and explain how each of them WERE fixed by abolishing the imperium of the senate and people of Rome and explain how each of them COULD ONLY BE fixed by abolishing the imperium of the senate and people of Rome. The ponit you raised Cato, is not even vaild and i'll tell you why..You said that 50 percent of the emperors were killed or deposed or forced to kill themselves, while this number may be accurate the point of which i wish to make is this, you said that means that they were pretty crumby,well infact it's a hungry world outhere Cato, everyone wants power and everyone WANTED power, and when people wanted power especially back then that was the normal thing to do despose of one emperor replaced with the more popular one at the time. It's a hungry world out here, huh? No kidding. That fact only raises the question--what system of government manages to keep power-lusters from slitting everyone's throats whenever they feel frustrated? The beauty of a republic is precisely that it provides checks and balances so that no single power-luster can ever gain enough power to be threat to his fellow-citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Can we not appreciate both men for their respective abilities, as well as simply being interesting characters in their own right, regardless of their politics? It depends on why you admire the Roman world. For me, Rome's greatest contribution was in its laws, not in its having quirky characters. So, Roman politics is not just a "personal issue" for me, but part of a broader historical claim I'm making about what made Rome great. When a Roman tells some barbarian ruler, "I am a citizen of Rome, and you are just a king," he's making a statement that is far more powerful (in my opinion) than in sacking some group of hovels in the backwaters of Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 *dons flak vest and helmet* Now I simply wish to make an observation. Correct me of course if I am wrong, but, it would appear a good and possibly logical answer to the question, 'Why did the Republican Era see more territorial gain than that of the Principate or Dominate etc.?', is due to the very nature of the Consul system. Each year you had a set of new leaders who ran the army, now each one knew they had one year and only one year, (or had to wait another 10 before another chance), to make some great acheivment or to conqeor some large enemy or land. Therefore, the drive to acquire was so much stronger during this period than that of the Principate since, the Emperor would be secure in his position and could therefore take land at his leaisure. If this is a logical view, then it gives us an excellent possible answer as to why the Republican Era saw the greatest expanse in Roman territory than anything compared in the Pricipate, Dominate, etc. This being said, then we only see, (from my point of view, I could be wrong), a time when those in power are murdered and knocked off happen more often in the Imperial days than those of the Republic because, if you are a successful general and you want that chance at complete power, the only way you will most likely acquire it is through an ursurpation, when in the Republic, you could be peacefully and democratically be given supreme command, though again for only a year, but you would still have that chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Sure, it was a self-perpetuating system. Consul's raised a levy, they were then obligated to provide that levy with booty, which of course meant war someplace or another. The Marian reforms were really only an extension or formalization of this system from a reward perspective. I challenge anyone to find me a year that the Romans were not involved in war from 390-31BC, I don't think you'll find much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) The biggest evidence that the principate was more suited for it's time than the republic was the Pax Romana. As soon as the republic fell and was replaced by another system everything worked out just fine for the next 200 years plus, thats not a coincidence it's directly related. Look at the last 150 years of the republic and compare that to the next 200 years of the principate. The republic was obviously failing and the principate was obviously a successful solution. Again, thanks to Sulla and Caesar, without them it would have taken a lot longer to change the outdated system. It's a shame that by the late 5th century AD, there was no one couragous enough to make radical changes to a system that like the late republic was also failing after 500 years. The late empire could have used another Sulla reincarnated. ...depends on why you admire the Roman world. For me, Rome's greatest contribution was in its laws, not in its having quirky characters. It was the quirky characters that contributed much to Rome's laws. Edited January 29, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philalexandros Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Prove it. Make a list of the "failures of the republic" and explain how each of them WERE fixed by abolishing the imperium of the senate and people of Rome and explain how each of them COULD ONLY BE fixed by abolishing the imperium of the senate and people of Rome. It's a hungry world out here, huh? No kidding. That fact only raises the question--what system of government manages to keep power-lusters from slitting everyone's throats whenever they feel frustrated? The beauty of a republic is precisely that it provides checks and balances so that no single power-luster can ever gain enough power to be threat to his fellow-citizens. Cato.. You are quite the seceptic! You don't seem to realise what certain individuals bring to an empire. And even manage to argue against some of the greatest emperors of all time. I don't have time to make an indepth list of all the failures of the republic, but what i do have time to make is here : The failures of the republic : all fixed by JUST ONE EMPEROR OCTAVIN ( Augustus ) There was 100 years of civil war. There wasn't an honest government or sound currency system. No efficient postal service No free trade among the provinces were fostered Literature did not folourish And one major point HERE - would all of those lands have been conqured and under Romes control if it werent for the emperors??? Rome wouldn't have become such a dominant force to be reckoned with . who is saying that the senate provides checks and balances when infact the senate and certain individuals acting in the 'so called' senates interest are infact acting in there own. Cato infact , even what seems so called stable and in check is corrupt,that's why the emperors were the solution they fixed all of these the republics errors, and plus recieved the backing of the senate. It's just like saying we shouldn't have primeministers today because that one person holds so much power, well infact you need a person at the top to run the empire/country with the backing of a senate and it's peoples. That's the best way and if you ask anybody most certainely the least corrupt way to govern. I'll end this with a quote from Plutarch to show you something. 'Those who acomplish and aim for great things must also suffer greatly' - Plutarch And it's unfortunate that the emperors were classed under this catogorey, they couldn't prevent or know that they were going to be murdered ruthlessly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.