Sunday, July 24, 2011
A comment about the Republic
Would it be fair to say that Rome transitioned from a monarchy to an aristocracy to an oligarchy to some form of a representative democracy by the late Republic?
No.
Rome was a monarchy from 753 to 509 BC. Even among the seven kings of Rome, the Romans moved toward a Constitutional Monarchy with important enfranchisements from Servius Tullius that Tarquin repealed with his high handed autocratic rule. Tullius had established the Assembly of the Centuries. The people had a voice and representatives. They also had their patron client relationships and in 494 BC they had the tribune. With the publication of the 12 Tables in 451 BC, their rights had been codified and everyone knew them.
The soldiers of the Roman Army even in the late Republican Army when Marius armed scum and dregs, soldiers could read.
You always had representative democracy in Rome even in the days of the Roman monarchy.
Rome was a monarchy from 753 to 509 BC. Even among the seven kings of Rome, the Romans moved toward a Constitutional Monarchy with important enfranchisements from Servius Tullius that Tarquin repealed with his high handed autocratic rule. Tullius had established the Assembly of the Centuries. The people had a voice and representatives. They also had their patron client relationships and in 494 BC they had the tribune. With the publication of the 12 Tables in 451 BC, their rights had been codified and everyone knew them.
The soldiers of the Roman Army even in the late Republican Army when Marius armed scum and dregs, soldiers could read.
You always had representative democracy in Rome even in the days of the Roman monarchy.
A comment about the Roman Constitution
The Roman Constitution is confusing because it coalesced over time. The Roman gravitated toward conservatism because of the innovations in their lives. Roman state was not conceived, deliberated over, debated and compromised as our written Constitution. The Romans, like all military men, improvised when the situation required it.
We know that the Romans had contact with the Near East, the Greeks, the Gauls and other peoples of letters yet their Constitution has a unique stamp to it.
We know that the Romans had contact with the Near East, the Greeks, the Gauls and other peoples of letters yet their Constitution has a unique stamp to it.
Also because their Constitution was unwritten it was easy to change. All it required was a majority at the time or to merely violate the Constitution slightly if you will forgive the modern parlance "nudge."
I cannot emphasis enough how much innovation or improvisation had on the Roman mind. The office of Consul invented in 509 BC. The Romans invented the office of Censor in 443 BC, Praetor in 336 BC, Quaestor roughly 420 BC, Tribune and Aedile in 494 BC.
Under what conditions and circumstances might Rome have appointed dictators with practically unlimited governing powers?
The term Dictator did not the hold the same two bit Latin American sleaze ball connotation that we regard today. I think in examining our forbearers it is important to keep a sense of perspective of who these people were and how different they were from us.
Until Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, the term Dictator marked a man of reverence and respect. Think Father of Our Country style reverence. They believe this because the Romans invested absolute power in one man to solve one problem for sixth month at a time.
The Romans hated the idea of Kingship. They were jealous of their liberty. They held their liberty in reverence and awe. It marked his superiority against those people still subject to the whims of kings - read tyrant.
Athenian concepts of liberty and tyranny rested firmly in the breasts of the Romans. The man who wielded dictatorial power only did it for a number of months. From 509 to 83 BC, a period of 426 years, the Senate invoked the Roman office of dictator a mere 85 times and from the years 202 to 83 BC, the Senate had no need to convoke a dictator.
Famous men who held the office of dictator include men like Fabius Maximus, Lucius Papirius Cursor - twice consul during the Samnite Wars, Marcus Valerius Corvus, Marcus Furius Camillus five times Dictator and known as the Second Founder of Rome, but the most famous dictator of them all was Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus, who was living a type of political exile on his farm as his son had been convicted in absencia for political violence committed in defense of senatorial prerogative. Messengers found Cincinnatus at his plow when called to service. Cincinnatus mustered an Army and rescued the besieged Army personally by leading the infantry into battle and resigned from the office a mere 16 days in office.
By 202, the Senate replaced the office of Dictator with the Senatus consultum ultimum (the Final Act of the Senate) which empowered the Consuls with dictatorial power for a short window of time.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
What was the role of the proconsul as Rome expanded?
Prior to Hannibal, "a Consul had to become a General, because it was his business to look after the welfare of the State. . . . [After Hannibal] a man became a Consul in order that he might be a General. The toga was made to give way to the sword, and the noise of the Forum to the trumpets."
- Anthony Trollope The Life of Cicero
A proconsul means a couple of things. It means general and it also could mean governor. The word in Latin means roughly "for the consul." It meant that he who held such a title wielded power on behalf of the consul. He acted with the highest trust of the state.
Prior to Hannibal, the resistance of the Etruscans, the neutralization of the Latins, the conquest of the Aequians, the Volscii, the dreaded Samnites, the resistance of Epirius and the first Punic War, few men held proconsular rank and held proconsular authority for any extended period of time.
After Hannibal, the Romans changed. They stopped being a regional power and became a superpower. A superpower being a nation that can impose its will through military operations beyond its borders.
A nation under siege is different in so many ways than a nation that can project its military might through the use of expeditionary conquest. This difference is true in so ways that we cannot imagine because for so long this nation has been an expeditionary power for almost three generations.
After Hannibal, Rome depended more on its navy to transport troops in war and goods and services in peace. Colonists in pre-Hannibalic Rome served as first lines of defense against Samnite or Gaullic incursions. Colonists post-Hannibal brought luxuries and wealth. Further the experience of Hannibal changed the Romans forever.
A parent imprints their person, their character, their nature in part through discipline, pain and correction. In a sense, the greatest Roman who perhaps ever lived was never a Roman at all for Hannibal inflicted many losses in blood and treasure against the Romans that the Romans adopted Hannibal's person, their character, their nature. They sacked cities, enslaved entire populations, they engaged in theft and rapine with reckless abandon. Just as Hannibal did against them.
The practice of total war, war without mercy or humanity that Hannibal engaged with the Romans while NOTABLY exempting Rome's allies meant that Romans did not make treaties of equality with conquered or subjected powers. Instead Romans sent an army and so many armies. These armies would conquer and thus become rich off the spoils and then the Senate would appointed a governor who with the publicans (professional tax farmers) to go off an extort the province for more money.
In common parlance, it just too good to be bad.
Patricians and Plebes in the Early Republic
'The Roman Republic consisted of two basic orders: the Patricians and the Plebians. “These two groups would shape the culture of Rome with disagreement and discord. These two groups would develop a compromise over time, which was the driving force behind the evolution of the Roman constitution.' 1 The Patricians were the aristocrats and the Plebians were the commoners.
It is true that the Republic consisted of 2 orders at the time: Patricians and Plebians. From the founding of Rome, it is hard to visualize the difference between a Patrician and Plebian for Livy, Dionysius and Plutarch tell us that Rome from its founding originated as safe-haven for Iron Age felons and crooks, a motley crew of pioneers, adventurers and rogues.
Romulus established the Patricians order on wealth or merit (depending on your definition of merit.) The Patrician class unlike a warrior band at their origins were just the richest men of the bunch. They weren't related to one another nor was their rank predicated on individual heroism or military prowess whereby the chief dispensed spoils to favorites as William the Conqueror or Charles Martel would. Romulus needed to bind the 100 richest men to the state, the establishment of a patrician order served that purpose.
His grandfather suggested that he create a privy council such as a Senate to solicit their opinions on ideas he had to rule his Kingdom. He also needed the support of these men to finance his military operations against his neighbors the Sabines, the Crustumini, Veii and Fidenae.
Though conservatism and hierarchy mark Roman society, entropy and dynamism mark the Roman character. Patricians may have stayed patricians, but just because you were born a patrician doesn't mean you were born to a life of Riley. Catiline, Caesar and Sulla, though patricians began their lives in economically dubious circumstances. Patricians and Plebians were equal before the law. It makes sense that Roman Society inclined toward more hierarchical and conservative norms due to the instability of Romulan times.
When the Roman people expelled the last King of Rome in 509 BC, the Romans had no clear idea of what was next. It makes sense that Roman Society inclined toward more hierarchical and conservative norms due to the instability of the new Republic.
Patrician power coalesced over time and met resistance, had been pealed back and advanced during various points of the history of Rome due to the personalities of the times.
It is true that the Republic consisted of 2 orders at the time: Patricians and Plebians. From the founding of Rome, it is hard to visualize the difference between a Patrician and Plebian for Livy, Dionysius and Plutarch tell us that Rome from its founding originated as safe-haven for Iron Age felons and crooks, a motley crew of pioneers, adventurers and rogues.
Romulus established the Patricians order on wealth or merit (depending on your definition of merit.) The Patrician class unlike a warrior band at their origins were just the richest men of the bunch. They weren't related to one another nor was their rank predicated on individual heroism or military prowess whereby the chief dispensed spoils to favorites as William the Conqueror or Charles Martel would. Romulus needed to bind the 100 richest men to the state, the establishment of a patrician order served that purpose.
His grandfather suggested that he create a privy council such as a Senate to solicit their opinions on ideas he had to rule his Kingdom. He also needed the support of these men to finance his military operations against his neighbors the Sabines, the Crustumini, Veii and Fidenae.
Though conservatism and hierarchy mark Roman society, entropy and dynamism mark the Roman character. Patricians may have stayed patricians, but just because you were born a patrician doesn't mean you were born to a life of Riley. Catiline, Caesar and Sulla, though patricians began their lives in economically dubious circumstances. Patricians and Plebians were equal before the law. It makes sense that Roman Society inclined toward more hierarchical and conservative norms due to the instability of Romulan times.
When the Roman people expelled the last King of Rome in 509 BC, the Romans had no clear idea of what was next. It makes sense that Roman Society inclined toward more hierarchical and conservative norms due to the instability of the new Republic.
Patrician power coalesced over time and met resistance, had been pealed back and advanced during various points of the history of Rome due to the personalities of the times.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Legacy of Romulus 753 to 717 BC
 |
| A Sculpture of the She-Wolf that according to legend suckled the infant twin founders of Rome Romulus and Remus. |
Rome owed her expansion to her military prowess. Victory in war more than diplomacy, cultural or economic dominance marked the Roman way. What makes for victory in war? What were the tactics that Romans employed? How did the Romans organize themselves to succeed in war? Was the Roman Army distinct from its neighbors? An examination of the military record of King Romulus, first King of Rome demonstrates its distinct and unique character that is still present today.
The Army of Romulus evolved from a gang of companions and tuffs, to bands of armed shepherds, to enrollment of 3,000 men and the creation of the first legion. The military history of Romulus consists of a war against the usurper in Alba Longa, a civil war with his brother Remus, the war among the Sabines.
The war started over a grazing dispute between shepherds. Alba Longa lies south east of Rome on Mount Albanus and Lacus Albanus. A plain of 12 miles separates Alba Longa and the seven hills of Rome. The opening engagement resulted in the capture of Romulus’ brother Remus. Romulus with the aid of his foster father Faustulus organized a raid on Alba Longa in order to liberate his brother Remus. Romulus killed the usurper, their grand-uncle Amulius the so-called king of Alba Longa. Rather than rule it himself or jointly with his twin brother Remus, Romulus restored his imprisoned grandfather Numitor brother to Amulius to the throne of Alba Longa.
We find an auspicious beginning in the first two military engagements. There is no closer sibling relationship than that of twins. Twins not only share the same womb, same parents and familial upbringing but also share the same dimensions. It is said that identical twins communicate between each other without words.
 |
| A Production Still from the movie "Universal Empire" depicting a Marian Army circa 87 BC. |
The writings of Livy, Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus with general agreement record the civil war among the twin brothers Romulus and Remus as one of primacy in governing the city of destiny. Plutarch states “the first houses numbered no more than a thousand[1]” with Romulus and his followers on the Palatine and Remus and his followers on the Aventine that he had dubbed Remonium. Attempts to solve the crisis by appealing to Numitor[2] and divination failed. Remus was killed for mocking the walls of Rome when he leaped over. The ancients are evasive as to who dealt the death-blow. All three sources concede that Celer may have killed Remus and yet do not discount that Romulus probably killed his brother and certainly regretted it. Fastulus, Romulus’ foster father and Fastulus’ brother, Pleistinus, Romulus’s uncle had been killed in battle resisting the kingship of Romulus. The ancients record Romulus’ guilt and regret.
Romulus commissioned a war against the Sabines. The grazing lands laid in the balance in the war with Alba Longa. The kingship of Rome laid in the balance in the war with Remus. The control and domination of the Sabine women laid in the balance in the war with Sabines. During Festival of Neptune the Equestrian, King Romulus lured his neighbors to the Circus Maximus and then at an appointed signal kidnapped over 300 women to make wives out of them. Plutarch cites 2 different sources that estimate the number of captured Sabine women to be twice the legendary 300[3].
Romulus waged long but successful wars against the Crustumini, Veii and Fidenae. Each brokered peace yielded some territorial concession. Upon the death of Numitor, Romulus inherits the community Alba Longa.
The final military adventure in Romulus’ life is the nature of his death. The ancients recount the myth that Romulus escaped the fate of all flesh by some Olympian ascension much like Elijah, Enoch or Mary the mother of Jesus Christ. Plutarch himself casts some doubt upon his pointing to senatorial assassination. No coup d’etat succeeds without the tacit support of some elements within the military.
“Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations.”[4] Pop stars, politicians, athletes, celebrities and yes, even soldiers represent the cultures that culled them. Commanders win battles due to critical split second decision-making. War rewards courage and punishes cowardice. Just as commerce remunerates good management over bad, war requites good generalship over the poor or mediocre.
Wars are not won on a budget. Victory often yields not often to the superior economic power. Rome did have an economy. The ford of the Tiber afforded Rome prime real estate on the trade routes connecting Latium to Etruria. The plains surrounding the seven hills of Rome afforded the Romans agriculture and grazing lands for livestock. The Romans gathered and traded salt. Further, Rome though by its own accounts attracted the scum and unsavory men from all over Italy, the immigration provided pools of men for labor – both free and slave. Given the desperate nature of the first men of Rome, it is plausible that such men incline toward indolence and dissipation. The counterpart cannot also be discarded, that desperate men are closer to necessity and therefore have a creative and industrious inclination. Rich or poor, the men of Rome had one thing in common: they were rejects. No doubt that common link bound them culturally. Accounts from Plutarch and Livy both point the city states of Caenina, Antemnae and Crustumerium feared to the growing economic power of Rome enough to go to war. However, history demonstrates that bold leaders win the day against men of good coin. One need only read Plutarch’s Life of Crassus to see that bared out.
 |
| A modern day look at Mount Albanus |
Frederick Thomas Jane said of Alexander of Macedon: “An army of sheep led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by a sheep.” The circumstances, technology, terrain and tactics of a battle may change. The maxims of war do not change. One side must kill and destroy the army that opposes it. It does so through having more courage, better leaders, resources and the foresight to effectively employ them to the end. It is just that simple.
 |
| A view of Mount Albanus from Lake Albanus |
An act of courage is an individual decision culminated over a lifetime of love, discipline and boldness. Though Armies decorate the soldier for his heroism on that day for this battle, his parents, his family name and his community share in his honor. The Romans that acted courageously in the face of numerous Sabines, Etruscans or Alba Longans, did so because they came from a superior culture. It is true in Brennus’ day just as it is true in Vietnam.
Following the Sabine War, Romulus created more institutions to better govern his realm. After an abortive attempt at co-equal kingship with the Sabine King Tatius, Romulus divides the courts into three tribes giving the tribes autonomy in religion, law and conscription. Further Romulus breaks these tribes into ten curiae and those curiae divided further into ten gentes. Romulus established a personal bodyguard of 300 horsemen. These institutions served as the ascendant to the popular assemblies, the tribunate, concepts of Roman liberty and in the regal bodyguard the seeds of tyrannical dictatorship.
Though we cannot compare Rome to its neighbors such as Alba Longa, Veii or Fidenae. Against near eastern and Aegean neighbors, it was distinct, successful and enduring. The legacy of Romulus still touches us to this day.
Facebook
[1] Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch's Lives: The Life of Romulus Loeb Classical Library edition The Text on LacusCurtius The University of Chicago, accessed 13 July 2011; available from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Romulus*.html
[2] Earnest Cary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Roman Antiquities Book I Chapters 72 - 90 Loeb Classical Library edition The Text on LacusCurtius The University of Chicago, accessed 13 July 2011; available from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/1D*.html
[3] Bernadotte Perrin, ibid. 14:6
[4] Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling, A failure in generalship. Armed Forces Journal. accessed 14 July 2011: available from http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cary, Earnest. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Roman Antiquities Book I
Chapters 72 –90 Loeb Classical Library edition The Text on
Lacus Curtius The University of Chicago Available from
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius
_of_Halicarnassus/1D*.html , accessed 13 July 2011
De Silencourt, Aubrey. Livy The Early History of Rome Books I - V of The History of
Rome from its foundation. London: Penguin Books, 1960.
Duncan, Mike. The History of Rome Podcast. Available from
Fears, J. Rufus. Famous Romans. Chantilly: The Great Courses, 2001
Grant, Michael. The History of Rome. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978.
Mommsen, Theodor. The History of Rome. About.com Etext Available from
accessed 14 July 2011.
Perrin, Bernadotte. Plutarch's Lives: The Life of Romulus. Loeb
Classical Library edition The Text on Lacus Curtius The
University of Chicago Available from http://penelope.
uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Romulus*.
html, accessed 13 July 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)