Rome conquers much of its enemies from 300 BCE-140 BCE. The wealth of these conquests go mostly to the warrior class in a society where you need to be a land-owner to serve in the military and participate in said conquests and collect spoils.
The economic inequality that results from the unequal distribution o…
Rome conquers much of its enemies from 300 BCE-140 BCE. The wealth of these conquests go mostly to the warrior class in a society where you need to be a land-owner to serve in the military and participate in said conquests and collect spoils.
The economic inequality that results from the unequal distribution of conquest loot elevates the position of the "tribune of the plebes"--a district-level political position with out-sized veto power that gives the people control over the senate in some aspects. The Gracci Brothers--AOCs and Bernie Sanders' of their time--begin demanding more money for the renting class from the asset-holding class. The asset class doesn't much like this, so they assassinate the Gracci Brothers, which injects political violence into the wealth inequality fight. Political gangs begin to emerge.
Gaius Marius--a popular Roman consul and general--reforms the military to allow military service for non-land-owning Romans, as they will gain their new lands upon conquest (a short-sighted solution to the "not-enough-soldiers" problem). This essentially makes soldiers loyal to their generals as voters because the better campaigns their general got, the better the lands and spoils of their battles would be. Men went to war simply to elevate financial and political status in a society where that was increasingly difficult. Thus began the era of clientelism from both sides.
Political gangs and lawyers become increasingly important in politics for both physical and legal protection from the opposing party. As bloodshed increases, senators are eventually killed on the floor of the senate (bludgeoned to death with the tiles of the senate roof) when fighting between Saturninus' gangs and Marius' gangs spills into the upper-class and kills both of them. Pompei and Julius Caeser and Cratius get rich and rise to power in the background of this conflict, and step in to fill their successor's shoes as the most powerful generals and senators in short order.
Eventually the pact between Caesar, Pompei, and Cratius for power-sharing breaks down when Caesar's daughter--married to Pompei--dies, and thus severs blood ties between competitive political elites. They go to war with each other, and they take their base with them. Rome rapidly dissolves into anocracy and ceases to function as a Republic from that point forward. Pompei and Caesar are both killed.
The whole chain is set in motion with wealth inequality and economic and political winners trying to hold onto power, and taking the Republic down with them when they cannot. Sound familiar?
All correct, with a concommitant feature: from Marius to Sulla to Cataline to Caesar, you can trace the degradation of the Horation/Cincinnatian ideal. By the time of Caesar pretty much the only figure left who gave a damn about it was Cicero, and look what happened to him! That the ideal was never even close to being honored in practice to the extent it was believed in by the very people whose behavior destroyed it does not mean it was real and vital.
You mention the blood ties that failed and the result was breach of the peace between the contenders. When blood ties are all there is to keep the peace, that means civil bonds have dissolved.
In WWII Bush 1 showed up at the bridge -- not just him, but the bulk of the upper and middle crust. Downhill from there, his son in my generation ducked the contest and took advantage of his position to play with jet aircraft on weekends and have his teeth cleaned at public expense. At least he showed up for work occasionally and followed the admittedly corrupt rules by which to avoid the trouble and vexation of offshore military service. Some who opposed the war also answered the call in a different way -- honorably opposing it -- but most of us did not. Our moral outrage suddenly abated when the draft did. Now we have the Trumps and Greitens and all their ilk, who collectively can't boast even a remnant shred of Horatian principle. A nation of Catalines. And proud of being so. A sucker monument in Arlington is not for them.
I think all the dour killjoy moralists who over the centuries warn that wealth and luxury inevitably destroys public virtue have a point. America, another republican example.
100%. Upper crust has no stake in the struggles of the nation anymore. The people I felt the worst for in the Late Republic were Cato & Cicero. Both loved the Republic deeply and tried their best to preserve it. All for nothing.
Two very different Romans, the new man and the oldest of the old. Both washed away by history.
In none of the history I've read do I find encouragement that republics endure for long. Caste systems endure, empires do fall but if they do not perish with civilization itself, merely engender successor empires.
Republics don't last because for a republic to prosper the parties contenting for pre-eminence need to want to govern, not rule. When they give up on the idea that governance is desirable, or conclude that it is no longer possible, they turn to the only alternative, which is striving to rule, for at that point it is rule or be ruled.
Time and history just ran out for Rome. And for Florence. And Venice. And now America.
Good synopsis, but a bit short to my recollection on the civil wars that wracked Rome for a generation or so before Julius's time. Primed the people to crave order even if it came from a tyrant. We have no such excuse. Yet.
Funny, I was jsut thinking about Rome, in particular that Julius Caeser is said to have invented the virtue Magnanimity. Prior to him, it was straight ahead kill 'em all, burn everything and take the women. Caesar instead enlisted the defeated as allies. The reason I was thinking this is that I began thinking about the disgraced "Normals."
Fall of Rome in a nutshell:
Rome conquers much of its enemies from 300 BCE-140 BCE. The wealth of these conquests go mostly to the warrior class in a society where you need to be a land-owner to serve in the military and participate in said conquests and collect spoils.
The economic inequality that results from the unequal distribution of conquest loot elevates the position of the "tribune of the plebes"--a district-level political position with out-sized veto power that gives the people control over the senate in some aspects. The Gracci Brothers--AOCs and Bernie Sanders' of their time--begin demanding more money for the renting class from the asset-holding class. The asset class doesn't much like this, so they assassinate the Gracci Brothers, which injects political violence into the wealth inequality fight. Political gangs begin to emerge.
Gaius Marius--a popular Roman consul and general--reforms the military to allow military service for non-land-owning Romans, as they will gain their new lands upon conquest (a short-sighted solution to the "not-enough-soldiers" problem). This essentially makes soldiers loyal to their generals as voters because the better campaigns their general got, the better the lands and spoils of their battles would be. Men went to war simply to elevate financial and political status in a society where that was increasingly difficult. Thus began the era of clientelism from both sides.
Political gangs and lawyers become increasingly important in politics for both physical and legal protection from the opposing party. As bloodshed increases, senators are eventually killed on the floor of the senate (bludgeoned to death with the tiles of the senate roof) when fighting between Saturninus' gangs and Marius' gangs spills into the upper-class and kills both of them. Pompei and Julius Caeser and Cratius get rich and rise to power in the background of this conflict, and step in to fill their successor's shoes as the most powerful generals and senators in short order.
Eventually the pact between Caesar, Pompei, and Cratius for power-sharing breaks down when Caesar's daughter--married to Pompei--dies, and thus severs blood ties between competitive political elites. They go to war with each other, and they take their base with them. Rome rapidly dissolves into anocracy and ceases to function as a Republic from that point forward. Pompei and Caesar are both killed.
The whole chain is set in motion with wealth inequality and economic and political winners trying to hold onto power, and taking the Republic down with them when they cannot. Sound familiar?
All correct, with a concommitant feature: from Marius to Sulla to Cataline to Caesar, you can trace the degradation of the Horation/Cincinnatian ideal. By the time of Caesar pretty much the only figure left who gave a damn about it was Cicero, and look what happened to him! That the ideal was never even close to being honored in practice to the extent it was believed in by the very people whose behavior destroyed it does not mean it was real and vital.
You mention the blood ties that failed and the result was breach of the peace between the contenders. When blood ties are all there is to keep the peace, that means civil bonds have dissolved.
In WWII Bush 1 showed up at the bridge -- not just him, but the bulk of the upper and middle crust. Downhill from there, his son in my generation ducked the contest and took advantage of his position to play with jet aircraft on weekends and have his teeth cleaned at public expense. At least he showed up for work occasionally and followed the admittedly corrupt rules by which to avoid the trouble and vexation of offshore military service. Some who opposed the war also answered the call in a different way -- honorably opposing it -- but most of us did not. Our moral outrage suddenly abated when the draft did. Now we have the Trumps and Greitens and all their ilk, who collectively can't boast even a remnant shred of Horatian principle. A nation of Catalines. And proud of being so. A sucker monument in Arlington is not for them.
I think all the dour killjoy moralists who over the centuries warn that wealth and luxury inevitably destroys public virtue have a point. America, another republican example.
100%. Upper crust has no stake in the struggles of the nation anymore. The people I felt the worst for in the Late Republic were Cato & Cicero. Both loved the Republic deeply and tried their best to preserve it. All for nothing.
Two very different Romans, the new man and the oldest of the old. Both washed away by history.
In none of the history I've read do I find encouragement that republics endure for long. Caste systems endure, empires do fall but if they do not perish with civilization itself, merely engender successor empires.
Republics don't last because for a republic to prosper the parties contenting for pre-eminence need to want to govern, not rule. When they give up on the idea that governance is desirable, or conclude that it is no longer possible, they turn to the only alternative, which is striving to rule, for at that point it is rule or be ruled.
Time and history just ran out for Rome. And for Florence. And Venice. And now America.
Very good synopsis of Republic to Empire to…..
It's the shortened down Dan Carlin version if you will :-)
Good synopsis, but a bit short to my recollection on the civil wars that wracked Rome for a generation or so before Julius's time. Primed the people to crave order even if it came from a tyrant. We have no such excuse. Yet.
Funny, I was jsut thinking about Rome, in particular that Julius Caeser is said to have invented the virtue Magnanimity. Prior to him, it was straight ahead kill 'em all, burn everything and take the women. Caesar instead enlisted the defeated as allies. The reason I was thinking this is that I began thinking about the disgraced "Normals."