Did the Roman Commonwealth become outdated and politically/structurally irrelevant?

[TWT]

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:

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.

[BBQ_Sauce]

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."

[Conrad_Jalowski]

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!

[Wildor]

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.

[TWT]

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!

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”

[Milonius]

I'm afraid you got burned Conrad.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

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."

[TWT]

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.

[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...

[logrus]

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.