Did the Roman Commonwealth become outdated and politically/structurally irrelevant?

[abracax]

shush I have no idea what the roman commonwealth was, I just put something vague that would fit all fallen governments!

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

[logrus]

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.

[Heraclius]

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.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

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.

[DieForelle]

In essence, it is not the Roman Commonwealth that was the problem, but the frenzied minds of insidious and corrupt individuals.

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.

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.

[BBQ_Sauce]

I voted Yes because I always root for the underdog

[Conrad_Jalowski]

(In a joking manner): Where are the Three Stooges: Abakker, Milonius and pialpha?

[BBQ_Sauce]

Ok, serious question for you Conrad, what are you talking about when you say "Roman Commonwealth?" I've never heard the term before.

[wpack10]

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.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

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.