I am ready for a discussion on this topic.
Before posting, please be familiar with the time period at hand and be able to defend your arguments.
I am ready for a discussion on this topic.
Before posting, please be familiar with the time period at hand and be able to defend your arguments.
Conrad, you are the greatest, YOU are definitely getting rep from me for this thread lol
I can only say that it could not be irrelevant if it still inspires internet polls. :) Conrad, you rule!
Please, defend your choices through a short paragraph detailing the ratiocination at the core of your reasoning.
I will correct any historical inaccuracies.
Could you perhaps enlighten me on the Roman Commonwealth?
As humanity can never, and never has achieved perfection, and as we see that the Roman commonwealth has undoubtedly fallen, I believe that it's political structure was not an efficient form of government.
I believe it was an efficient form of government, the problem is the laws they had. If they wouldn't have suppressed everyone who wasn't roman, and instead gave them full citizenship, I do believe they would have lasted probably into the 15th century at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by DieForelle
shush I have no idea what the roman commonwealth was, I just put something vague that would fit all fallen governments!
LOL that's so great man... +rep for that one :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DieForelle
EDIT: Grrr... looks like I've already given you rep before. Oh well, its the thought that counts!
i tagged him for you, cause i totally agree with the +rep for making me laughQuote:
Originally Posted by chinothepony
Quote:
Originally Posted by DieForelle
Every government has oppressed someone and had laws against some race or another being actual citizens (whites only fountains, native americans relegated to reservations) lmao
Moderator Note, Please stay on topic.
I voted no, as a resident of the united states, we are still using a similar political structure today, and the government as a whole, inspired a large amount of the current tactics that are used today. Including the Carrot and the stick idea.
In Roman times, and correct me if I am wrong Conrad, it has been a while since my last Ancient History Class, however I am taking Ancient Greece and Rome this year in college (last one was in Highschool). Now again, in Roman times, when it was time for a new member of the senate to be elected, instead of running on there own personal renown or running on there own idea's etc, they were in fact responsible for the beginning of the PR hamster wheel. It was in fact very common for the WEALTHY people who ran for office, would walk through the streets passing out bread to the common citizens, asking in return for nothing, however this always inspired people to vote for the man. This ironically enough is disturbingly similar to current events in the world today, ironicly enough, this weekend is the 4th of July, when politicians will walk the streets shaking hands kissing baby's, and handing out candy to the voting population. Furthermore, a large portion of the reason that the Roman Empire fell, was due to dissent in the Senate, which caused many of the members to begin personal blood feuds with each other, as a result Pax Romana, (200 years or so of peace) came suddenly and abruptly to an end, as the members began to fight with each other. Without going into any more real detail, though, I believe that while the ideas, some good, and some bad, are still prevalent today in the world.
I feel that the Senate itself was very well structured and could have lasted for centuries more. What made it fall out of grace wasn't the structure, but the men that made it up. Men with power want to use that power, and that is what happened to the Senate. Also Roman law at the time was subpar. Their laws created rifts, both between the plebs and patricians, and between Romans and Provincials.
The move to give Provincials citizenship came far too late to save the Empire, let alone the Republic. By creating these rifts, the Roman Republic sealed its fate.
I strongly disagree with the opinion that the Roman Commonwealth became politically and stucturally outdated. Within the context of antiquity, it was well balanced and integrated as compared to Periclean democracy. The Athenian system of Solon gave way to the Peisistratid tyranny whilst the reforms of Cleisthenes, Ephialtes and Pericles gave way to the rise of sophists and demagogues that were strongly condemned by Plato in his philosophical treatise Menexenus.
Athens had a good system of checks and balances with the Areopagus that selected the archon, the Ekklesia as a male assembly, the Boule or the judiciary council composed of the dikasts. However, with the ascendency of Pericles and the ousting of Cimon, the populist regime was immoderate. The fall of Athenian hegemony from 478-404 BCE led to a brief revival with Thrasybulus and the second Athenian power from 378/377-355 BCE that eventually fell due to popular uprisings in Cos, Chios, Samos, Thasos against Athenian deprivation. The rise of demagogues of the populist parties led to a degeneration of government control and quickly devolved into a lack of moderation, petty passions, licentiousness and chaos. The concept of Periclean democracy was more prone to chaos and self-destruction than the Roman Commonwealth.
The Roman Commonwealth felt the convulsions of decay and dilapidation with the Gracchi Brothers that led to a distrust between the senatorial class and the equestrians. The recordings of Sallust and Cicero of the Catilinarian Conspiracy and the Jugurthine War illustrate the corruption of public officials, the utilization of coercion and political intrigue. Catiline threatened to overthrow the Commonwealth, Jugurtha was a thorn in Roman interests in Africa, and the Marius/Sulla struggle seared Rome to its very foundation. This was increased with the ambitions of Pompey and Julius Caesar who cared only for their own private interests. After Pharsalus, Thapsus and Munda Caesar deprived Rome of her greatest virtue: moderation and liberty. The assassination of Caesar could not hold back the tide of ambition and fratricide. After Actium, the Principate was declared and the Commonwealth officially became defunct.
However, it was not the Commonwealth which was the root of the problem but the petty hubris, false thoughts and base character of perfidious and vulgar individuals such as Caesar, Sulla, Marius, etc. The Commonwealth did have flaws such as the differences between a Roman subject and an ally or colony. However, one must keep in mind that the majority of Roman cleruchies or colonies did not abandon Rome after the battle of Cannae thereby depriving Hannibal Barca of a precious base of operations and thus isolating him in southern Italy with Marcellus and Fabius Maximus keeping the Carthaginians at bay whilst Scipio Africanus struck at Carthaginian hegemony in Spain by capturing New Carthage, winning at the battles of Baecula and Ilipa, and capturing Gadiz. The Roman Commonwealth was flexible and adapted quite well to the changing environment. Rome adapted well after the failed invasion of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, Hannibal Barca, and annexed other territories in a consistent manner after the defeats of Philip V, Perseus and Andriscus of Macedonia, integrated the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues, consolidated a hold over the Attalid Pergamene Kingdom, repelled the rebellion of Aristonicus, eventually brought Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysius to his heels, humbled Tigranes II Eupator of Armenia, set up a defensive line alongside the Euphrates River, dethroned King Antiochus XIII of the Seleucids in a careful and methodical manner.
In a philosophical manner, the themes of general liberty and republican ideals are much stable than a despotism that dazzles men with a false glaring light and maintains authority only though coercion and a force of arms. The moderation of Scipio Africanus who put the idea of the Mos Maiorum or the ideals of the Commonwealth above his own selfish interests strengthened the Republic as opposed to men who blindly followed slavish desires and their own self-gratification such as Julius Caesar, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, etc.
In essence, it is not the Roman Commonwealth that was the problem, but the frenzied minds of insidious and corrupt individuals. In addition, the Empire period was more unstable with only a single autocrat determining the fate of the state. The Principate: 27 BCE-235 CE gave way to the Barracks Period: 235-285 CE of countless usurpers and claimnants to the imperial dignity and then to the ruthless Dominate Period: 285-476 CE with the Tetrarchy, permanent division of the Empire by Theodosius I: 395 CE; the West going to Honorius and the East to Arcadius, and the collapse of the infrastructure of the Empire on 476 C.E in the West.
One must honor the worthy cause of Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis who died with the Republic rather than to outlive it and submit to the despotism of Caesar; Publius Cornelius Scipio 'Africanus' whose moderation and wisdom greatly benefited the Commonwealth; and Marcus Tullius Cicero who defended the Commonwealth from individuals who sought to overthrow it and replace it with despotism. The Commonwealth lived in the minds and hearts of men even under the Principate such as with Seneca and Lucan and did not expire even with the destruction of the Empire. The themes of self-sacrifice, virtue, moderation and honor were carried onto the American nation, infused into the aesthetic philosophy of Friedrich Schiller, was the main focus of Joseph Addison's Tragedy of Cato Uticensis, praised by Machiavelli in his commentary and analysis of Titus Livy's Decade and offers a sharp contrast to the drunken and false passions of autocracies and monarchies.
Is that not what corrupts any form of government? The west strongly opposes communism, but think about it. True communism IS a good ideal. Unfortunately it is just unachieveable with human greed and corruption. I don't believe any form of government itself is a failure, only those which take on the ruling position.Quote:
In essence, it is not the Roman Commonwealth that was the problem, but the frenzied minds of insidious and corrupt individuals.
So which rulers did not fail? Which rulers are good? I don't believe any. All rulers are corrupt, and even if they're done good, they've also all done unspeakable things.
I voted Yes because I always root for the underdog
(In a joking manner): Where are the Three Stooges: Abakker, Milonius and pialpha?
Ok, serious question for you Conrad, what are you talking about when you say "Roman Commonwealth?" I've never heard the term before.
HEyy How come i dont get to be a stooge. T-T.
Anyways i didnt vote because Conrads post was way to long for me to read. Plus if i did manage to read it i had never heard of half those books, words or people. In the end i am going to vote no because Conrads first sentence, the only one i understood, said he disagreed with the thought that it was outdated. :D
Oh! A Ciceronian term for the Roman Republic. In Marcus Tullius Cicero's On Laws and the Commonwealth, he detailed the complex system of the Roman Republic, through its checks and balances, political equipollence or unity and cohesion, its system of the consuls, praetors, aediles, quaesters; the role/function of the civilian tribunes, ranks of precedence, ways of improvement, etc.
Cicero never wrote a On Laws and the Commonwealth. Are you talking about his two separate works On the Republic and On the Laws?
The term "commonwealth" wasn't coined until a good 1000 years after Cicero's death.
OMG OMG OMG :O He just accused Conrad of being wrong on something that has to do with history. Blasphemy!Quote:
Originally Posted by BBQ_Sauce
History major fight!
*gets popcorn and a soda*
So, what will happen?
BBQ Sauce, you are wrong. Marcus Tullius Cicero's concept of the Roman state/Mos Maiorum was a technical term of Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of politeia that most closely resembles the term commonwealth. Cicero was a great synthesizer of Greek thought as he studied Theophrastus, Posidonius, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras and blended it with Hortensius, Cato 'the Elder', etc so as to apply such concepts to the Roman mode of life.
In addition:
http://images.barnesandnoble.com/ima...0/34625871.jpg
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by DieForelle
THANK YOU!Finally, someone gets it... I was starting to think America was just retarded:rolleyes:
Anything before 1450 or so isn't really my forte so I'll give this to you. Ancient History isn't my cup of tea.
Based on my brief knowledge of Rome, I think that no it did not.
They had an amazing system set up for such bloodthirsty people. During wars to gain freedom from the etruscans (Who ultimately influenced the final political system, as the Etruscan monarchs were brutal, and the Romans desired a government of the people, for the people, by the people, etc..), durings wars against the Carthiginians, and even in the gladiators arena, they proved they had a massive taste for blood. Yet they sat down nicely, in a chamber, and talked about what would happen, as a whole. They worked together to decide on Rome's path. Civilized Barbarians, they had the best political system ever, right up until the Triumverate crumbled, and Caesar declared himself dictator.
Note, I rambled quite a bit, so my point may have been lost.
Conrad, I think you largely re-said my exact opinions but with better wording, in other words I agree with you. I also agree that communism is a great "idea" however, due to the fallen nature of mankind we cannot create a perfect communist ideal. (Dances around the barely legal to post sign) In fact in most of the majorly accepted religions, the underlying principle that is taught, is communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
Cicero may have been a fan of the Greeks, but I am confused by your use of the term commonwealth, in its strictest definition it has nothing what so ever to do with democracy, nothing to do with any sort of constitution, and in fact very little to do with how the actual government is run, in point of fact, the term commonwealth refers to divergent governments which come together for a specific cause, or under a single authority to promote a common goal, much like England and Jamaica, two separate governments that both swear fealty to the Queen and both contribute, though not evenly, to the common defense. Please explain what this has to do with the Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of politeia, and that link having been established how this applies to the Imperial Roman modal.
Off topic: Hey! TWT is back! yay!
Back on topic: The term "commonwealth" is just a translation. The Latin publica just means like a group of people. Back when he wrote it, I suppose Cicero meant "Republic," but now people see it as meaning "Commonwealth."
I enjoy how individuals who hardly understand the factual history of the Roman Commonwealth, the utilization of particular political terminology as in regards to classical Greek and Roman political/philosophical thought, and the role of Cicero with Greek philosophy in relation to Roman thought.
It is interesting how ignorance on a particular topic can be concealed underneath the guise of understanding!
That the Roman Republic fell because men of power and influence sought to protect and enhance what they perceived as their own best interests is undeniable.
It is the whole point.
Political structures are created to put boundaries on the extremes of human conduct and to canalize energies towards a better social environnement, enabling large groups of people to live in better conditions.
For them to succeed, a meeting must take place on a broad enough plane between the needs and aspirations of individuals and the requirements of the said structures (usually states) to perpetuate itself.
When and where such a meeting fails to take place, either the state rids itself of troublesome individuals or the state itself is replaced as no longer adequate to the needs or aspiration of it's people.
It is important to remember that Politics (I use the term in it's widest sense) concerns itself with human nature. And that it is not Politics calling to change human nature. Rather,to try to understand it ever better.
So that can be derived better structures under which people can live ever better lives. That is Politic's ultimate goal.
That the Roman Republic lasted and prospered for so long (500+ years between the last king and Marius) is a tribute to roman ingenuity and practicality.
However, as Rome grew from a small city-state to a mediterranean wide "unofficial" empire, conditions changed.And Rome saw the appearance within it of a creature it had never had to deal with in such quantities before.
More and more men amassed vast riches and saw their personal power and influence rise accordingly, and on a much larger scale than ever before.And the Republic could not adapt in time to this new phenomenon.
That is what is usually meant by "the Republic became irrelevant to it's own time."
Marius,Sulla,Catillina,Pompey,Ceasar....All of them and more acted in what they perceived as their own best interest. As people of that time mostly did. And so the people before. And so the people today. That is human nature.
When they and others like them perceived that to respect and perpetuate the Republic in it's old form ran too contrary to their own interest,they proceeded to ignore it,and to finally bring it down. The Republic could not adapt itself. It could not take under it's wings such individuals, put limits on their behavior and canalize their resources and energies towards constructive goals.
To succeed,any political structure must also provide, I believe, for the widest possible variety of individual talents and attributes.
(Note here the importance of Thomas Jefferson's words to our modern society."The Pursuit of Happiness" is something for every individuals to define for his/herself. And comes UNDER the protective umbrella of the political structure, something the Romans never knew.)
The Roman Republic, by it's conquest of vast territories, cultivated the very sort of men it could not tolerate.
It is also very important not to under estimate the fact that, starting with Marius, roman armies felt their loyalty more and more bound to their commanders and less to the state, for various reasons.
Finally, I will permit myself a hyperbole to illustrate a point.
The Republic didn't fall because of a sudden influx of men of "lesser character". Men of that time acted as all men always have. It is useless to blame humans for being human. Rather, it is for the state to adapt and perfect itself. And for Politics to better understand humans.
Your right, I have no knowledge of the Roman Commonwealth, not due to any lack of learning on my part, but rather that it never existed, you want to talk about the republic, ok, you want to talk about the empire, ok, you want to talk about Cicero or the city states, fine, but seriously, go look up the definition of Commonwealth, the Romans never had one, and if, as others seem to think, by commonwealth you mean republic, how can you even ask that, Rome was on the verge of collapse before the imperial period and had it not been for the restructuring of the government would certainly have dissolved, its like asking if the Russian Empire could have survived in the modren world. Oh, and in regards to your post on my message board, perhaps you could explain exactly how my previous post, “conceal their lesser understanding/knowledge underneath a guise of understanding”Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
I'm afraid you got burned Conrad.
I like how individuals who do not know Platonic, Aristotelian and Ciceronian philosophy, and the concept of politeia claim to understand such concepts, its correlation to the particular topic, and its main tenets.
"Taking everything together that is of public interest leads to the connotation that the res publica in general equals the state. For Romans this equalled of course also the Imperium Romanum, and all its interests, so Res Publica could as well refer to the Roman Empire as a whole (regardless of whether it was governed as a republic or under imperial reign). In this context scholars suggest "commonwealth" as a more accurate and neutral translation of the term, while neither implying republican nor imperial connotations, just a reference to the state as a whole."
I like how people who claim to be historians don't answer questions posed to them, and than go on not to note their referances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
Ah, all the teachings of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are powerless against the irrationality of a fiery five year old as I once read on the theme of futility of intelligence to ignorance.
You are wrong, and I am disheartened to see that ignorance is so widespread...
Careful how close to the edge this is going. This is straying dangerously close to attacking other users. The thread from the beginning was straying close to discussion about politics.