Challenge: Roman republic ad Infintuium

Just because there's no slavery doesn't mean income inequality will suddenly vanish. There will still be a massive underclass of poor workers (just like existed in the 19th century in Europe despite slavery being widely illegal) who will be just as easily manipulated by promises of grain. In addition, plebeians becoming wealthy is no solution to the collapse. After all, no less a man than Marcus Crassus (believed to have been the richest man in history up to that point) was a plebeian by birth (as was Pompey and Marius), and their wealth and stature did nothing to stave off the decline of the Republic (if anything, they made it worse).



I'd say this is essentially correct, although I think that, even by the time of the Second Punic War, they hadn't passed the point of no return yet. A Roman Republic that is in control of Italy and Sicily could probably avoid the downward spiral of dictators, at least for a while. There is a lot of credence to the idea that Rome became an actual empire around the time of the Middle Republic, and this was the critical factor that made the fall of the Republic more-or-less inevitable. In modern times, it is certainly more possible for large states with standing armies to remain republics, but given how simplistic Roman institutions were (compared to modern ones), a remedy being found retroactively seems unlikely.

Wealth inequality did not bring down the Roman Republic.
 

Md139115

Banned
I like the game got done on the first try and the only thing you have to do is not gain glory

And I actually disagreed with that conclusion because without personal glory and gravitas, how was one going to force through the necessary social reforms?
 
Well yes, but it’s “Play as a politician of the Late Roman Republic,” not “Play as a Christian missionary in the 2nd Century AD.”
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-16 at 12.34.18 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-16 at 12.34.18 PM.png
    100.8 KB · Views: 55

Md139115

Banned

I do think he’s drawn the wrong conclusions. Otherwise Cato should have done much better than he did.
 

Md139115

Banned
the writer of the game did

Yes. Very accurate portrayal of how hard it is to save the Republic, but it wasn’t getting accomplished without being just as massive an egomaniac as the rest, only non-corruptible and committed to social reform. Otherwise, it’s just Cato or the Gracchi Brothers.
 
Wealth inequality did not bring down the Roman Republic.

I never said it did, in fact I said the opposite here:
The "fall of the rural land owner" is a little bit romanticized in history. Those displaced poor couldn't have done anything without the politicians to enable their mob mentality. The root of the problem was the total lack of any balances to the powers of consul besides the tribunes. However, the tribunes themselves could not enforce this veto, and lo and behold, by the 120s BCE, tribunes were being killed in the streets over the use of their veto

I was just addressing the fact that income inequality wasn't the root of the problem, and that trying to solve it wouldn't have saved the republic
 
Just because there's no slavery doesn't mean income inequality will suddenly vanish. There will still be a massive underclass of poor workers (just like existed in the 19th century in Europe despite slavery being widely illegal) who will be just as easily manipulated by promises of grain. In addition, plebeians becoming wealthy is no solution to the collapse. After all, no less a man than Marcus Crassus (believed to have been the richest man in history up to that point) was a plebeian by birth (as was Pompey and Marius), and their wealth and stature did nothing to stave off the decline of the Republic (if anything, they made it worse).

What you don't believe in Jefferson's dream of a republic of yeoman farmers?

I meant the door would be open for great wealth not that everyone would attain it, but there would have been a better chance for all citizens to become gainfully employed and not depended on 'bread and games.' (The opportunity for Davies 'rising expectations' to be fulfilled not denied.) -- CW usually argues that the city's unemployment rate sky rocketed because of slave labor; the agriculture consolidated into slave worked plantations driving small farmers into the city.

But as I stated it was a quick fix and quick fixes seldom work. But I would still argue that the main problem to correct was the staggering unemployment rate which placed too large a segment of the population dependent on Patrician largeness. End that dependence and the republic might have endured.

Or to put it in contemporary political rhetoric, it was about jobs, jobs, jobs. You don't fix that problem first nothing else would have worked.
 
What you don't believe in Jefferson's dream of a republic of yeoman farmers?

I meant the door would be open for great wealth not that everyone would attain it, but there would have been a better chance for all citizens to become gainfully employed and not depended on 'bread and games.' (The opportunity for Davies 'rising expectations' to be fulfilled not denied.) -- CW usually argues that the city's unemployment rate sky rocketed because of slave labor; the agriculture consolidated into slave worked plantations driving small farmers into the city.

But as I stated it was a quick fix and quick fixes seldom work. But I would still argue that the main problem to correct was the staggering unemployment rate which placed too large a segment of the population dependent on Patrician largeness. End that dependence and the republic might have endured.

Or to put it in contemporary political rhetoric, it was about jobs, jobs, jobs. You don't fix that problem first nothing else would have worked.

The displaced farmers, massive slave underclass, and patrician apathy were all well and good problems to fix, but without addressing the underlying institutional weaknesses of the Republic, all the gainful employment in the world wouldn't stop Sulla from marching on Rome. Not saying that it wasn't a cause worth addressing, but it would be a half-measure at best, and wouldn't do anything to patch the sinking ship that was the Roman Republic in the 2nd century BCE
 
The displaced farmers, massive slave underclass, and patrician apathy were all well and good problems to fix, but without addressing the underlying institutional weaknesses of the Republic, all the gainful employment in the world wouldn't stop Sulla from marching on Rome. Not saying that it wasn't a cause worth addressing, but it would be a half-measure at best, and wouldn't do anything to patch the sinking ship that was the Roman Republic in the 2nd century BCE


What weakness, the caste system? -- Was not Sulla's perversion motivated by stopping Marius, and was not Marius' rise to prominence based on his largeness to the unemployed? Referring again to Davies, wasn't this the period where Rome hit the J-curve he warns of? -- What underlying institutional weakness are you referring to?
 
Care to elaborate?

Basically, there was wealth inequality the whole time, at the birth of the Republic and at the end, and well after it was dead. If wealth inequality was a problem, the Republic wouldn’t have existed at all, and the Empire wouldn’t have been able to function. I’ve never seen any information that overall economic equality was better under the Empire.

The challenges to the Republic were myriad, but if I had a gun to my head and someone asked me to explain it in a concise fashion, I’d say the failure ultimately came from mutual suspicion among the political actors ratcheting up to unprecedent levels and nobody being willing or able to find middle ground systemic solutions.

Until I decide a different reason is to blame.
 
What weakness, the caste system? -- Was not Sulla's perversion motivated by stopping Marius, and was not Marius' rise to prominence based on his largeness to the unemployed? Referring again to Davies, wasn't this the period where Rome hit the J-curve he warns of? -- What underlying institutional weakness are you referring to?

I think I enunciated it pretty clearly in my first post:
Wow. Where to begin?

There's no universal answer to "Why did the Republic fall?", but I'll give you the two primary causes from my point of view.

1. The Roman patron-client system: This aspect of Roman society is often glossed over by armchair historians, but the patron-client system was the primary social institution which governed political behavior. For those that don't know, Roman patricians would essentially give money and food to plebeians in exchange for minor services and political support. The Romans were extremely socially conscious and patron-client relationships were often viewed as taking precedence over familial relations. While this was always important in Rome, the influx of poor farmers into Rome over the period of 146-133 BCE made it possible for populist patricians to suddenly gain huge swaths of clients for support in elections, etc, and the sheer speed of this amalgamation gave any moderately wealthy or ambitious senator the ability to assume a prominent role in Rome. This is what led to the meteoric rise of politicians from families which weren't traditionally powerful in the Early and Middle Republic. In fact, almost every populist that took part in the fall of the Republic came from an plebeian or obscure patrician family. In a society where the years were literally named after the consuls for that year, the impulse to gain rapid status was powerful, and the central role of the patron-client system made it possible for any decently wealthy, ambitious, or well-connected men to mold the political system to their designs. However, this wasn't the decisive problem on its own, rather the critical weakness was:

2. The imbalance of the Republican government: When the kings were overthrown and the Republic was established, the only real change was the length of terms in office. Consuls functionally had the same powers as kings, with the only real check on power being the presence of a second consul. However, there were no such limitations placed on proconsuls. Proconsuls did not have any strict term limits or formal institutional checks. Once they were in their province, the ex-consul functionally became a king, with no real limitations on their domestic powers and no real mechanism to prevent them from marching on Rome if they so choose. After 146 BCE, the Republic basically had no standing army, and every legion that was levied was (because of patron-client politics) personally loyal to the respective proconsul. At the end of the Republic, the senate only controlled Italy while each province was functionally an independent fiefdom. This flaw in the system was shone bare in 49 BCE when Caesar marched on Rome and the only thing the senate could do to stop him was flee into the arms of another powerful ex-proconsul.

The patron-client system on its own was not sufficient to bring down the Republic, nor was the executive supremacy of the consuls. But without a means to control the entire army from a central chain of command, there is no way to reign in the leverage held by proconsuls with their privately owned legions. It took the Republic 100 years to fall, but when it finally did, it stabilized under the rule of one man, and remained stable for another century to come. This was principally because Octavian was able centralize the legionary command structure. So, in my view, the only way for the Republic to survive would be to establish a large standing army in Italy, pledged to obey either the year's consuls or the senate as a whole such that proconsuls did not have the same amount of leverage. Now of course, a large military in Italy poses its own series of threats to the survival of the Republic, but so long as no one man is able to gain patronage over too many legionaries, the system might remain stable for a few more decades.

However, if you want a less wordy list, then here:
1. Lack of checks on proconsular power
2. Lack of real respect for the sacrosanctity of tribunes
3. Inability to address bribery
4. Lack of an independent judiciary
5. Prevalence of ex post facto laws and bills of punishment
6. Lack of a real written constitution
7. Lack of any means to address any of the above problems in the long-term (largely as a result of no written constitution)
8. Total permetivity of the patron-client system into politics
 
I think I enunciated it pretty clearly in my first post:


However, if you want a less wordy list, then here:
1. Lack of checks on proconsular power
2. Lack of real respect for the sacrosanctity of tribunes
3. Inability to address bribery
4. Lack of an independent judiciary
5. Prevalence of ex post facto laws and bills of punishment
6. Lack of a real written constitution
7. Lack of any means to address any of the above problems in the long-term (largely as a result of no written constitution)
8. Total permetivity of the patron-client system into politics


I did read your extended statement but I'll address your check-off list.

8. But first off, I think we agree that the patron-client system that developed was the main underlying problem; which I believe could have been softened with more economic opportunity for the plebe. (But I am sounding like a broken record here.)

1. No doubt the lack of a check on proconsular power was the biggie; blessed with 20-20 hindsight we can see that 'Marius' mules' was the beginning of the end of the republic. Sulla certainly recognized it, but of course his solution was not the correct one. (And he was more likely driven by protecting the caste system than he was the republic.) But I fear the manner in which the empire expanded so quickly during that century, and the great distances involved made the rise of these 'great men' inevitable. It is easy for us looking back to see what a mistake that rapid expansion was, but IMO it is not a realistic solution to suggest that Rome should not have expanded (as was suggested by someone else above). But I must admit I am not sure even now how you reign in such power when you consider the tasks these proconsuls were expected to perform. As you noted, central control of the armies was the key, but the Senate often proved too cheap and politically hesitant to make the moves that were necessary. I suspect the Senate got seduced by the prospect of gained wealth pouring into Rome, while being primarily paid for by private filibusters. The Senate wanted something for nothing and it cost them.

2. The Tribune problem takes us back to the caste system. It is why I asked if you felt the caste system was an inherent weakness. There was going to be (and there actually was) a movement towards egalitarianism (at least for citizens) but it needed to take place a hundred years prior not a hundred years subsequently. The murder of the Gracchi was IMO a caste war. IMO it is unlikely the Tribune system would have ever worked so long as the caste system stayed intact. Those at the top had too much to lose.

3. Bribery! All systems have some form of patronage but when it slips into overt bribery any system is bound to fall. I concede, truly a problem that had to be addressed but I won't even try to address that problem here, I have nothing but the common cliche solutions to offer. (I believe they use to put people guilty of usury into a sack and kick them to death, but I guess they didn't do it enough.)

4. Judiciary! I am ignorant as to how the Roman courts worked, I realize that there was a split between Senate trials and the common law courts but I think the problem of bribery may have been the bigger problem than their independence from the Senate. (If that is what you are suggesting.)

5. Bills of Attainder, yes this one is a no brainier, if you don't forbid them your not actually a legit government (IMO).

6. & 7. Written Constitution! That is an interesting argument. I can see how it would have stopped much of the existing corruption that formed, but then again we have to ask ourselves how have the Brits gotten away with not having one for so long? There are some advantages to a flexible constitution (vs. a written one), one example is the ease in which the Brits realized that the Grand Jury concept had become obsolete and abolished it in the early 20th century, whereas we Americans (bound by our written constitution) continue to impose on the populace a 5th amendment right that has becomes more of a prosecutor's weapon than a protecting right. When was the last time you heard someone say: "Oh good, I am getting to exercise my constitutional right to appear before a grand jury"? LOL

Anyway I enjoyed your arguments; I suspect that I am a bit cynical and believe that all republics eventually cycle into oppression (IMO the classical-Christian consciousness argument the Founding Fathers often referred to, is an inevitability.) Rome was not going to last as a republic, then again either are we. (Have you watched any of the Trump rallies? He has the peasants chanting, chanting statements of hate. As a 'republican' I hold a deep fear of peasants who chant at the behest of one man.)
 
Judiciary! I am ignorant as to how the Roman courts worked, I realize that there was a split between Senate trials and the common law courts but I think the problem of bribery may have been the bigger problem than their independence from the Senate. (If that is what you are suggesting.)
truly a problem that had to be addressed but I won't even try to address that problem here, I have nothing but the common cliche solutions to offer.

The problem with the judicial system was that it was run by senators. Not the senate at-large of course, but every judge (or praetor) was a senator, who could go on to serve as consul, or any number of roles in the senate. Julius Caesar for example, was praetor in 63 BCE, and every consul had to serve as praetor first. For this reason, the role of praetor was heavily politicized, and this made judicial corruption inevitable. In modern democracies, a strong and independent apolitical judiciary is one of the cornerstones of stability and the rule of law, and without that, the praetorship helped doom the republic (especially after praetorships became a prerequisite for a command in the provinces). Bribery is only really possible to reign-in if there's an independent judiciary without major interests tied to the senate (which were usually the ones doing the bribing). Julius Caesar, for example, payed huge bribes to get elected to the praetorship, and if he enforced the bribery laws on the books after his election, the praetors for the next years would bring down the fully legal might of the senate upon him for his hypocrisy. For this and other reasons, judicial independence was really impossible, and contributed heavily to the fall of the Republic. The sacrosanctness of tribunes was so fragile for the exact same reason (i.e. it was impossible to enforce due to conflicts of interest from the judges themselves).

No doubt the lack of a check on proconsular power was the biggie

I agree, and I think this really is the central issue. If this remains unresolved, all issues of income inequality, judicial independence, and the patron-client system are totally tangential, since after any attempt at reform, any general can simply unravel the whole effort through force of arms. All laws in any society are ultimately backed up by the implicit use of force, so by definition the Republic was dead when the senate gave control of armies to proconsuls. The only way for this to be resolved is to either a) centralize the military under the reigning consuls or some other apparatus, b) create some check on the power exercised by proconsuls in the provinces, or c) avoid expanding outside of Italy. However, the Roman concept of imperium (the idea that magistrates had power over life and death and were immune from prosecution as long as they were serving the state) pretty much precludes any direct checks on proconsuls beyond just sending two proconsuls to every province. This is what I mean when I talk about institutional unbalance. Even if, hypothetically, the senate abolished the patrician/plebeian distinction, redistributed land to the poor, and eliminated the patron-client system through welfare, it could all be undone by any rogue proconsul with a big enough army. We agree on the broad strokes of what killed the Republic, we just disagree on what the central issue was.

But I fear the manner in which the empire expanded so quickly during that century, and the great distances involved made the rise of these 'great men' inevitable

Well yes, that's a fairly common view among historians. Conquering the Mediterranean was like swallowing a poisoned pill, and was largely responsible for destroying the Republic. However, this is only due to the institutional fragility of Rome. It's not directly impossible for large states to exist as republics, but if the republic in question isn't equipped with stable enough institutions to handle the inevitable consequences, then it will go the way of Rome.

But I must admit I am not sure even now how you reign in such power when you consider the tasks these proconsuls were expected to perform

The same way we reign in proconsuls today. After all, General Eisenhower didn't march on D.C. when he returned victorious from Europe in 1945. A strong judicial system, a clear and centralized chain of command, and respect for the rule of law backed up by the credible threat of implicit force. The Roman Republic didn't have these because no ancient state had these until the Empire came about, and the institutions of the Republic didn't change quickly enough to accommodate for the emergence of the generalissimo in the 2nd century BCE.

In conclusion, I don't think income inequality and class issues were unimportant, but I think the Marxist-esque reading of history that sees the fall of the Republic through a classist lens is a bit off-base because it misses the root of the problem, namely the fragility of Roman institutions and imbalance of the political power structure.
 
Top