The Politics Thread (Roman Empire Version)
 

Cato, Caesar, Mark Antony, Tiberius, Tacitus, Livy

Post your thoughts or questions here.

hehe fun

bring it on smart guy

I bet there were plenty of Toga Parties in Rome

well here's an interesting question, along the lines of one commonly debated, but specific to this situation:

Do you believe that if it wasn't Caesar it would have been someone else sooner rather than later?

And if so why? What do you feel was the fatal-flaw of the Republic before Caesar?

To the "flaw" my first reaction is that it was somehow part of the Republic's strength - the reliance on strength and growth.

Not sure about the first question. I just don't know if I have a good enough grasp of Caesar's politics, much less his personality. Part of me thinks that what happened was as much the specific circumstances of Rome at the time than anything inherent to the Republic.

Maybe a technical answer would be the 2 consul system.

Mark Antony...yay or nay? how does cronin fall?

lemme hear your answer first, cause I'm of two minds

The problem was the increasing reliance upon the strength of one man to keep things in Rome stable. Plus, you had such a divide between the patricians and the plebeians, which some consuls were able to use to their advantage. Rome was in some turmoil from roughly 130BC through the time of Augustus. You had the Gracchi brothers, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar that dominated that period of time. The only difference between Sulla and Caesar was that Sulla put his power aside eventually.

Yes. I think romaine lettuce, croutons, garlic, olive oil, and parmesan cheese go so naturally together that the discovery was inevitable.

i think everyone is.

i guess it depends on through what lense you choose to look at him.

did he attempt to maintain power against what caesar wished...yes
but through doing so did he likely strengthen the power of future rulers through forcing Octavian to consolidate power and likely shape much of whom octavian was as a ruler? yes
through his aid to caesar at the beginning and the civil war at the end of the second triumvirate did he help to effectively demolish the republic...yes

I'm not sure if I'd "yay" or "nay" on him, but he's certainly a great (and underappreciated) man. I guess in that sense, I'd hafta "yay" him?

I'm not sure after Caesar's assassination that the republic could have been reconstituted and reformed. But, maybe it could have been - and Antony wasn't interested in that. It's hard to blame him for that attitude. But compare him to McArthur or Pericles, and I think he comes off badly.

After Caesar any Republic would have been run exactly like Augustus ran the Empire.

An optimist, eh?

My knowledge about Rome goes about as far as the series ... which is awesome, by the way. I catch it on HBO On-Demand each week.

Augustus ran as he had to run it. I think after Caesar, everyone knew that the Senate was essentially bereft of power, but had to be placated so there was no more power struggles.

Augustus basically ran it under the guise of executing the will of the Senate, but the Senate was voting the will of Augustus. I think whoever was in the position of Augustus would have done the same thing.

The problem was that the legionaries had no allegiance to anyone other than their commander, which is why you had the run of dictators from Marius to Caesar.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this setup. I've read Tacitus, and he doesn't seem to commit to which was actually in control, Augustus or the Republic. By the time Tiberius is in power, it's clear (from Tacitus) that the Republic is a facade. But I think it's less obvious in Augustus' rule, and I think the actual dynamics are more complicated.

Man, I'm way out of touch with my history info (been 4 years since I've really looked at a serious historical work), but this used to be right up my alley. It's amazing how much one can forget in just a few years...

What about the Grachhi? I think they laid the foundation for what Caesar was able to do.

oh no doubt vince that the grachhi playing to the plebians was a major cause of the civil unrest that gave caesar a window...and a pretext. it also gave him a way to win over the people...by positioning himself ostensibly as the heir to that tradition

Gladiator...yay or nay? Based on a true story? ;)

And on a bit more of a serious note. I heard in a lecture from The Learning Company that one of the main reasons Rome fell was because of their involvement in the Middle East. Do you agree?

I'm shocked there hasn't been a "what better?" post yet.

My main source of knowledge about this is I Claudius and some general ancient history so I guess you can take this with a large grain of salt, but it certainly seemed to me that Augustus had more power than the Republic.

That is actually the whole point. Augustus' title was Princeps, First Citizen. He established this facade so that his total domination was more palatable. I just got through reading a history of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and it was interesting some things about Rome that I hadn't realized.

I'll try to post the setup with Augustus tonight or tomorrow if I get a chance.

What is interesting is that the book that I read described the 4th century as the climax of the Roman state, which in interesting because that is typically considered the time when the flame was burning low.

To answer gkb, no the Middle East was not the reason for the fall of the Empire. Actually, the Empire did not fall completely until 1453, when Constantinople fell. The Western Empire fell in 476, and that was because of the lack of a strong leader in the west. Everytime it appeared that one man would step up, an emperor would have him killed.

Now, the fighting between the Sassanid Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire did pave the way for the Arab Empires in the 700s and later. After the Roman-Persian wars of the early 600s, the Arabs were able to move into the Middle East and take many of the most valuable lands from both Empires. The Sassanids fell soon after, whereas the Eastern Roman Empire survived, just greatly diminished in size.

Definitely interested to see your interpretation of this. It's not at all clear in Tacitus Annals.

"Little Boots" was a party animal. Bob Guccione could only show a small portion of the things he was accused of.

But by that time, the empire was already well into the decline.

OK, what happened was the Senate could not maintain order without Octavian. He surrendered all powers he had back to the Senate. He was given governorship of several provinces and was named consul each year until 23 BC. After that he was given imperium maius "greater proconsular power." This power did not lapse when he was in Rome either, unlike other proconsuls.

Shortly thereafter, he was given tribunal powers, he could summon the Senate, propose measures and veto business he disapproved of.

When he abdicated consular power to the Senate, there was a riot, until it was realized that he still had other powers in compensation.