The clientela-theory and the fall of the republic - help is needed&#33

[fonss]

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).

Edited November 19, 2006 by fonss

[M. Porcius Cato]

The best modern source on the topic, IMO, is Chapter 8 "Clientela" in Brunt's Fall of the Roman Republic. He goes over the evidence with a fine-tooth comb and comes to the conclusion that the system did not play a key role in politics. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative--just because there is no evidence that the client system played a key role in politics doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. On the basis of this logical principle, then, I personally don't believe the Gelzer story.

[Andrew Dalby]

The best modern source on the topic, IMO, is Chapter 8 "Clientela" in Brunt's Fall of the Roman Republic. He goes over the evidence with a fine-tooth comb and comes to the conclusion that the system did not play a key role in politics. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative--just because there is no evidence that the client system played a key role in politics doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. On the basis of this logical principle, then, I personally don't believe the Gelzer story.

 

Thanks for that reference, MPC. I want to read that now. I have always felt that the patron-client system explained two big questions: why it mattered that Caesar adopted Octavius (because he would then inherit Caesar's clientela) and how it was that Augustus became a de facto monarch ("emperor", as we call him) in a still-functioning republic (because patron-client functioned in parallel to the consul-senate system, and he became the universal patron). So I must see how Brunt explains those two things.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks for that reference, MPC. I want to read that now. I have always felt that the patron-client system explained two big questions: why it mattered that Caesar adopted Octavius (because he would then inherit Caesar's clientela) and how it was that Augustus became a de facto monarch ("emperor", as we call him) in a still-functioning republic (because patron-client functioned in parallel to the consul-senate system, and he became the universal patron). So I must see how Brunt explains those two things.

 

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy.

 

The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks for that reference, MPC. I want to read that now. I have always felt that the patron-client system explained two big questions: why it mattered that Caesar adopted Octavius (because he would then inherit Caesar's clientela) and how it was that Augustus became a de facto monarch ("emperor", as we call him) in a still-functioning republic (because patron-client functioned in parallel to the consul-senate system, and he became the universal patron). So I must see how Brunt explains those two things.

 

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy.

 

The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate.

 

 

Restraint is a virtue . :blowup:

[P.Clodius]

Thanks for that reference, MPC. I want to read that now. I have always felt that the patron-client system explained two big questions: why it mattered that Caesar adopted Octavius (because he would then inherit Caesar's clientela) and how it was that Augustus became a de facto monarch ("emperor", as we call him) in a still-functioning republic (because patron-client functioned in parallel to the consul-senate system, and he became the universal patron). So I must see how Brunt explains those two things.

 

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy.

 

The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate.

 

 

Restraint is a virtue . :blowup:

With regards to?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks for that reference, MPC. I want to read that now. I have always felt that the patron-client system explained two big questions: why it mattered that Caesar adopted Octavius (because he would then inherit Caesar's clientela) and how it was that Augustus became a de facto monarch ("emperor", as we call him) in a still-functioning republic (because patron-client functioned in parallel to the consul-senate system, and he became the universal patron). So I must see how Brunt explains those two things.

 

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy.

 

The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate.

 

 

Restraint is a virtue . :blowup:

With regards to?

 

 

Me (Marcus Porcius Cato's viewpoint is so different from mine that there is no use to comment) .

[M. Porcius Cato]

So what's your criticism of Fergus Millar's paper?

[P.Clodius]

Someone's viewpoint differeing from your own is no reason not to post. I happen to disagree with MPC on this issue, though I have yet to research it in depth so I'm holding back for now. If you have researched feel free to speak your mind!

[WotWotius]

Braund, D. 1984 Rome and the Friendly King: the character of client kingship. discusses clientela-theory in the provinces.

Edited December 5, 2006 by WotWotius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Braund, D. 1984 Rome and the Friendly King: the character of client kingship. discusses clientela-theory in the provinces.

 

Isn't this mostly about the Imperial period? What light does Braund shed on the relation between Roman clientela and the rise of monarchy?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

"The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate."

 

 

The state of the Republic in c. 100 -

 

"By the beginning of the first century BC, confidence in the standards which had seemed to represent the spirit of Republican life was severely shaken; in particular, the governmental stability of the early Republic was in tatters as the series of challenges to the senate's auctoritas had demonstrated the real weakness of that body. More important now were the individuals and factions who rivalled each other for supremacy. In short, the Roman Republic and its Empire were fast becoming ungovernable. (Augustus Caesar by David Shotter; Routledge, 1991)

 

The solution -

 

"Although it would be a gross exaggeration to say that there was any kind of consensus about finding a solution, a number of politicians for varying motives showed by their actions that they believed that the only real solution to the problems of the Republic lay in a concept which in traditional terms was deeply distasteful-namely permanent or semi-permanent supervision of the government by an individual. The distaste sprang partly from an old fear of kingship and partly from the practical anxiety that dominance by one man was bound to interfere with the freedom and legitimate ambitions of others. A more cynical view might render these as privileges and vested interests.

 

The use of armies to gain office -

 

"

Edited December 6, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

And how are these lengthy quotations at all relevant to clientela, which is the topic of this thread?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

And how are these lengthy quotations at all relevant to clientela, which is the topic of this thread?

 

It is relevant for your assertion about the Republic institutions still in action in Augustus days .

What is clientela ? It is about Leaders of factions and their clients via private armies . To make myself more clear - private armies based on clientela are the opposite of the Roman Republican "constitution" . How could little Caesar make himself a political figure (one of the two strongest men in Rome allready in 44/43) if he did not had clientela , based on the army of Ceasar ? Rebulican mechanisms ? in the 30' ? As Shoter said - The Republic was actually dead since c. 100 .

As you can see "these lengthy quotations" are from 1991 , so I am update...But now , alas , I am not making relevant quotations...

 

Keep your good spirit .

Edited December 6, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

What is clientela ? It is about Leaders of factions and their clients via private armies .

 

I see--we may be arguing at cross-purposes. That's not the definition of 'clientela' I would provide.

 

On the one hand, your definition is too broad. Factions had leaders (like Caesar, Pompey, and Cato), but the non-leading citizens in the faction were not necessarily the clients of those leaders (e.g., Bibulus followed Cato, but Cato was not the patron of Bibulus). Further, leadership of a faction did not require a private army. For example, the factions of Cato/Ahenobarbus/Scipo had no army, nor did the vast majority of patrons have an army -- even in the late republic.

 

On the other hand, your definition is too narrow. The patron-client relationship extended far beyond politics. Its genesis in the early republic was as a mechanism for providing legal protection to plebs who lacked the civil rights enjoyed by patricians, and as civil rights for plebs in Rome expanded and as Rome expanded into foreign territories, patronage was increasingly an Italian and later foreign affair.