Rome. After the Republic stagnation? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13760949
In the first century rome became rome a Dictature, after Cesar.

My analysis of history is that Rome has stagnated since Ceasar abandoned the republic.

The romans made no big conquest nor they had technological innovations, in the Centuries under the rule of Emperors.
By Wolfman
#13761118
I think the technological stagnation of Rome was a coincidence. Although any other stagnation may have been related. For example, Rome did end up militarily stagnating. They didn't gain any new territory after a certain point, and started to quickly lose it in places. The ability of the Senate to expand outward was limited, but an Emperor could decide to expand indefinitely. This eventually led to Rome simply not having enough troops to guard it's own frontier.
User avatar
By Suska
#13761120
They shifted their economic weight after the Republic fell, they became a looter nation.
User avatar
By noemon
#13772364
Not really, the greatest moments of Rome were under Trajan and his dynasty the Antonines. Trajan's reign has been described by marxist historians(Rostovjeff) and capitalists(a whole bunch) alike as the 'The Happiest Era of Human History'.
By Kman
#13772403
Yes they did stagnate after they enacted dictatorship as a form of rule, the fact that Ceasar could become a dictator was just a sign of how rotten Roman culture had gotten, a virtuous people would not have tolerated some schmuck naming himself dictator.
I view the early republican days of the Roman era to be its good period, it was the period when currency debasement did not exist and government taxation on the economy was virtually non-existant, it was only after they started debasing the currency (like the US did in 1933) and enacting dictatorship that Roman culture really started decaying and falling apart.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13772437
I view the early republican days of the Roman era to be its good period, it was the period when currency debasement did not exist and government taxation on the economy was virtually non-existant, it was only after they started debasing the currency (like the US did in 1933) and enacting dictatorship that Roman culture really started decaying and falling apart.


The Dictatorship actually brought order and changes to the stagnating society of the "Republic". The Star Wars meme is false, Kman. :D
By Wolfman
#13772454
Yeah, Rome's most prosperous period was after the end of the Republican era.
By Kman
#13772502
Cookie Monster wrote:The Dictatorship actually brought order and changes to the stagnating society of the "Republic". The Star Wars meme is false, Kman. :D


No the emperors brought tyranny and currency debasement in order to pay off the military thugs and bureaucrats that kept them in power happy, at the expense of the average roman citizen who saw his tax burden skyrocket.

Wolfman wrote:Yeah, Rome's most prosperous period was after the end of the Republican era.


Wrong, the roman economy started falling apart as soon as the emperors started their massive currency debasement since doing so makes economic calculation and trade very hard to do.
By Wolfman
#13772539
No the emperors brought tyranny and currency debasement in order to pay off the military thugs and bureaucrats that kept them in power happy, at the expense of the average roman citizen who saw his tax burden skyrocket.


Before the Roman Army was paid by the Emperor it was owned privately (and did whatever the fuck the owner wanted, even if it was completely retarded) or was self funding, and had a habit of enslaving people in order to pay themselves.

Wrong, the roman economy started falling apart as soon as the emperors started their massive currency debasement since doing so makes economic calculation and trade very hard to do.


And how long after Emperors took over did that happen? And what stopped the Republic from doing the same thing? And what makes you even think the two were related?
#13782587
The problem with dictatorships is they inevitably depend greatly on one person, yes there were some good dictators (Caesar, Octavian, Trajan etc) but there were many terrible ones too (Nero, Caligula etc). In the end the constant political warfare and civil strife decimated the Roman leadership and slowly caused its gradual decline.
#13782862
In the end the constant political warfare and civil strife decimated the Roman leadership and slowly caused its gradual decline.

The Roman leadership had been decimated during the civil wars of the late Republic. Does the word 'Proscription' ring any bells? One Roman writer described it as "the saddest word in the Latin language". Look up the Wiki pages on the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Octavian....
#13783561
The problem with dictatorships is they inevitably depend greatly on one person, yes there were some good dictators (Caesar, Octavian, Trajan etc) but there were many terrible ones too (Nero, Caligula etc)


There were actually relatively little truly bad emperors. Nero, Caligula and Commodus are the only ones that immeditaly come to mind. On the other hand you had a fair share of great emperors. Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marc Aurel and Septimius Severus for instance and then there were also many emperors who were unremarkable but certainly not bad(Claudius, Titus, Nerva etc.). The major problem I see with Roman Emperors was not their quality but the uncertainty of their succession, which later of course played a considerable part in the downfall of the empire.
#13783672
You might consider that depending on the political-social structure, an unexceptional leader (or a series of them) can be just as damaging as a bad one. So for example if the system needs someone to steer it constantly, someone who takes a hands off approach is actually doing harm by essentially doing nothing.
#13783692
I'm not sure that the Romans themselves would have seen a fundamental difference between the republic and the empire. A lot of that interpretation came much later. Augustus boasted that he saved the republic - not destroyed it, as we more or less see now.

Humanity may look back to Jackson or Ike, or Clinton, Reagan, or anyone else as someone that destroyed the republic and issued in a kind of empire.
#13783702
I'm not sure that the Romans themselves would have seen a fundamental difference between the republic and the empire. A lot of that interpretation came much later. Augustus boasted that he saved the republic - not destroyed it, as we more or less see now.

Absolutely right. However, it is clear that Julius Caesar did intend to end the Republic. Several times, he performed a piece of political street theatre with Marc Antony - Antony would approach Caesar in public and offer him a crown and tell him in a loud voice that the people of Rome wanted him to become their king. Caesar would judge the reaction of the crowd, and then virtuously refuse the offer. It was obvious to everyone and his pet dog what Caesar's game was. Sooner or later, during one of these pieces of theatrics, the crowd would respond as Caesar hoped they would and Caesar would take the crown. Bye bye, Miss Roman Republic. Augustus was determined not to make the same political mistakes which had cost Caesar his life - there were no more crowns on offer, and Augustus always went to great pains to defer to the Senate and make it appear that he was merely obeying their commands (Tiberius dispensed with this show of deference as soon as he became Emperor). Legend has it it that Augustus' last words as he lay dying were, "The actor is leaving the stage. Applaud him!"

Humanity may look back to Jackson or Ike, or Clinton, Reagan, or anyone else as someone that destroyed the republic and issued in a kind of empire.

The American President does not yet have the personal executive power that the Roman Emperors had. Until that happens - and it probably will happen in the not too distant future, out of necessity - we cannot yet talk about the end of the American Republic. And an imperialist republic, even an imperialist democracy, is not a contradiction in terms, as ancient Athens demonstrated. America is becoming increasingly imperialist, but has not yet dispensed with its republic.
#13783787
I more or less agree with you. Though, historians in the future may draw all kinds of lines. It may be that Eisenhower is seen as ushering a new system with the, "Military Industrial Speech." In which case, it could be said that the lines were drawn early on and it just took a few decades (or longer) for the executives to figure out how much power was on their laps. After all, the US went from a country without a standing peace time army to having military bases in virtually every country with first strike capacity within Ike's lifetime.

Or it could be something else that marks the line.

Point being though, I'm not sure that it was clear to the Romans that the system had come to an abrupt change at the time. I would suspect that there were some saying so, some saying there were changes needed to keep the republic going, and some saying that nothing had fundamentally changed. You already tend to see people saying those things in the US - only when the dust has been settled for a few centuries one could tell.
#13783886
I more or less agree with you. Though, historians in the future may draw all kinds of lines. It may be that Eisenhower is seen as ushering a new system with the, "Military Industrial Speech." In which case, it could be said that the lines were drawn early on and it just took a few decades (or longer) for the executives to figure out how much power was on their laps. After all, the US went from a country without a standing peace time army to having military bases in virtually every country with first strike capacity within Ike's lifetime.

I would say that the rise of the military-industrial complex, together with the founding of the CIA, marks America's 'Gracchi moment' - the moment when it becomes clear that things cannot continue in the same old way as before, due to the objective changes both in America's place in the world and in the relationship between the people and the state. The system can, and will, continue for many more decades under its own inertia, but a fundamental transformation has taken place. Attempting to simply ignore that transformation will just mean that the political system will become increasingly detached from objective reality, will become increasingly unreal in the Hegelian sense. In my view, this process is already well underway.

Or it could be something else that marks the line.

America's 'Augustus moment', or even its 'Caesar moment' has yet to occur. Hell, it hasn't even had its 'Marius moment' or its 'Sulla moment' yet.

Point being though, I'm not sure that it was clear to the Romans that the system had come to an abrupt change at the time.

Clearly, something had changed - there was now a single individual who was essentially Dictator for life. Where the Romans disagreed with each other was over the causes of that change - whether it was caused by the overweening ambition of a few power-hungry individuals, or by fundamental and irreversible changes in Rome's place in the world and in the relationship between its social classes.

I would suspect that there were some saying so, some saying there were changes needed to keep the republic going, and some saying that nothing had fundamentally changed. You already tend to see people saying those things in the US - only when the dust has been settled for a few centuries one could tell.

I agree that some things in history only become clear in retrospect - in fact, historical events only have a 'meaning' when seen in retrospect - and it is only after many decades or centuries have elapsed that it can be seen whether those changes were merely a temporary anomaly, or proved to be irreversible. At the time, many or even most Romans probably believed that the rise of Julius Caesar and then Augustus Caesar was a mere anomaly which could, in principle, be reversed. However, by the time Tiberius became Emperor it was clear that this change was irreversible.
#13785861
Code: Select allAmerica's 'Augustus moment', or even its 'Caesar moment' has yet to occur. Hell, it hasn't even had its 'Marius moment' or its 'Sulla moment' yet.
Is it inevitable that the United States will experience an Augustus or Caesar moment? It might as well end with a whimper. :hmm:
#13786155
I don't think it has to have one. If it did, it may have found it in Reagan - a person highly successful at the idea that he was preserving the US while radically altering it.

But that's a stretch. I would suspect that if we had to choose an ancient system, the collapse of the US would be more like the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. A long series of expensive wars with no real victory, a declining market, a taxation system that increasingly favours the wealthy and large estates (which produce nothing and undermined the Theme system as there were no soldiers to be drawn from the increasingly giant estates of the wealthy), and then teetering on with the reputation of great wealth until someone (or something) decides that it's time to pull the house of cards down.
User avatar
By AuContraireVoltaire
#14004962
Kman wrote:Yes they did stagnate after they enacted dictatorship as a form of rule, the fact that Ceasar could become a dictator was just a sign of how rotten Roman culture had gotten, a virtuous people would not have tolerated some schmuck naming himself dictator.
I view the early republican days of the Roman era to be its good period, it was the period when currency debasement did not exist and government taxation on the economy was virtually non-existant, it was only after they started debasing the currency (like the US did in 1933) and enacting dictatorship that Roman culture really started decaying and falling apart.


Dictatorship had existed during the Roman Republic long before Caesar, and it did not have the same connotations it does today. Dictatorship was decreed by the Senate in times of emergency; one man was given sole power, for an ephemeral period, to save the Republic from an immediate danger. (See Cincinnatus in 5th century BC; Sulla in 1st century BC)

And the Republic was far from virtuous as most Senators cared only for two things: their auctoritas, and their dignitas. A career in public life was a fiercly competitive and, especially in the later Republic, bribery was endemic, as was shameless gossiping, intrigue, machinations and manipulation. Politics in Rome was even more putrid than it is today. Sure there were exceptions in men like Cato and Cicero, but on the whole very little was virtuous about Rome's governance.

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]