I just re-watched HBO's Rome. It's not as good as when I was a teenager, but it made me curious about something I hadn't thought of before; what was the Roman conception of the Republic? In Ancient Greece there was the great conflict between different systems-democracy, oligarchy, various types of Monarchy-but the Republic started as a kind of half-Monarchy with the old Kings (who were elected anyway) replaced by dual Consuls. Was there really an ideology of Republicanism that lead Romans to, say, sympathize with the Athenian in histories of the conflict with Sparta? Would the Romans look at the historic democratic Greek city states and recognize core similarities in governance?
Obviously they did since they declared the founding of their Republic to be exactly one year before the Democracy of Athens just so they could claim to be better than the Greeks. Also their quasi-legendary history is full of people resisting tyranny which jibes with Greek sensibilities on the matter.
Would people have referred to "good Republican values" though?
Before speculating about what US Grant's cognomen might be I suspect that Roman republicanism has little to do with internal improvements, freeing the slave and 40 acres and a mule.
The roman republic was a kingless monarchy where the aristocracy as a whole participated in being king through the senate and the consuls. They would have thought themselves to have little in common with the democratic rabble of athens or the rexite homoi of sparta. The roman upper class wanted the prestige and usefulness of greek culture and philosophy but they almost certainly saw their system as unrelated and superior to the greek ones. Thats what Polybius writes about, massaging Roman egos about how they can admire the achievement of greek art, culture and philosophy why feeling superior in their politics.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 01:33:38 PM
I just re-watched HBO's Rome. It's not as good as when I was a teenager,
As opposed to now, as an older teenager? Fuck, it was just on, man.
Squeelus became a man while in Turkey.
Squeelus Maximus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 07:01:51 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 01:33:38 PM
I just re-watched HBO's Rome. It's not as good as when I was a teenager,
As opposed to now, as an older teenager? Fuck, it was just on, man.
It ended in 2007.
Yeah, like yesterday.
So it looks like we one person arguing that the Romans did understand their Republic as fundamentally similar to the various types non-monarchic Greek states of the Classical period, and one person arguing that there was no fundamental similarity between the two, and none was understood by the Romans to have existed.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 11:16:15 PM
So it looks like we one person arguing that the Romans did understand their Republic as fundamentally similar to the various types non-monarchic Greek states of the Classical period, and one person arguing that there was no fundamental similarity between the two, and none was understood by the Romans to have existed.
I guess I would question Viking on how the popular assemblies, the Tribunes, and quasi-legendary events like the secession of the Plebes fit into his version. Besides constitutionally the Senate was an advisory body only I believe.
WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2013, 01:10:43 AM
WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great
There's a lot done well and a few things done very poorly.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 01:21:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2013, 01:10:43 AM
WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great
There's a lot done well and a few things done very poorly.
still great. Show me a better historical-ish TV series.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 12:00:08 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 11:16:15 PM
So it looks like we one person arguing that the Romans did understand their Republic as fundamentally similar to the various types non-monarchic Greek states of the Classical period, and one person arguing that there was no fundamental similarity between the two, and none was understood by the Romans to have existed.
I guess I would question Viking on how the popular assemblies, the Tribunes, and quasi-legendary events like the secession of the Plebes fit into his version. Besides constitutionally the Senate was an advisory body only I believe.
All political systems have some fundamental similarities. I did not claim there were none or that none were seen by the romans, but rather the romans saw their system as different and unique and not as a version of any of the greek systems. I just think that they would see their system as being as different from that of sparta or athens as we today see our system today being from China or Saudi Arabia.
The assemblies were not deciding bodies, they were electing bodies. Furthermore the system of centuries weighted the system towards the aristocracy. In athens you got your vote by being a citizen, serving as a galley rower of no property was enough. In rome the equivalent job lands you in the last century with the rest of the ignored capite cencisi.
We like the word democracy today due to it's positive connotations but at the time it was seen as a mobocracy ready to self destruct at the first sign of an alcibiaides or an adolf hitler.
I don't think the secession of the plebs, the role of the tribune of the plebs and the informal nature of the senate weakens my argument here. I think they saw representative rule as opposed to monarchic despotism or direct democracy as being it's own kind of thing, not a variant either of the other two.
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2013, 01:51:49 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 01:21:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2013, 01:10:43 AM
WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great
There's a lot done well and a few things done very poorly.
still great. Show me a better historical-ish TV series.
Deadwood.
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2013, 01:51:49 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 01:21:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2013, 01:10:43 AM
WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great
There's a lot done well and a few things done very poorly.
still great. Show me a better historical-ish TV series.
I, Claudius.
George Baker's Tiberius is great :)
Patrick Stewart with hair. :P
Obviously, the one who makes the whole thing is Brian Blessed.
Quote from: Viking on May 14, 2013, 04:21:32 AM
We like the word democracy today due to it's positive connotations but at the time it was seen as a mobocracy ready to self destruct at the first sign of an alcibiaides or an adolf hitler.
Maybe they were smarter than we are. Toss in some adversity and you never know what the electorate will turn to. Look at Greece today.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 14, 2013, 04:21:32 AM
We like the word democracy today due to it's positive connotations but at the time it was seen as a mobocracy ready to self destruct at the first sign of an alcibiabaides or an adolf hitler.
Maybe they were smarter than we are. Toss in some adversity and you never know what the electorate will turn to. Look at Greece today.
Or look at California and it's voted propositions biding the hands of politicians for mobocracy in a more civilized manner. I'd also like to point out that rome did have it's problems with Alcibiades types from Graccus to Marius to Caesar to Augustus.
"The Public Thing" certainly didn't render the romans immune, they probably thought it did thou.
The Roman Republic was around for 400-500 years and changed quite a bit over time, so I don't think one can meaningfully speak about a unitary concept of Republicanism. Indeed even at a particular time, the understanding of what republicanism meant was highly contested.
One thing I definitely agree with Viking about is that most Romans would not see Athens as a model; more like a cautionary tale of the dangers of democracy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2013, 12:08:28 PM
The Roman Republic was around for 400-500 years and changed quite a bit over time, so I don't think one can meaningfully speak about a unitary concept of Republicanism. Indeed even at a particular time, the understanding of what republicanism meant was highly contested.
One thing I definitely agree with Viking about is that most Romans would not see Athens as a model; more like a cautionary tale of the dangers of democracy.
I think the Romans most definitely thought their system was far superior to the Athenians. I think they felt like they were trying to do the same thing, just that the Romans succeeded and the Athenians failed. I do not agree that the felt they had nothing in common with what was going on in Athens. Again if they did not feel thay way why pick the year before Athens' Democracy as the date of the Republic's legendary founding? That was done for a reason.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 12:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2013, 12:08:28 PM
The Roman Republic was around for 400-500 years and changed quite a bit over time, so I don't think one can meaningfully speak about a unitary concept of Republicanism. Indeed even at a particular time, the understanding of what republicanism meant was highly contested.
One thing I definitely agree with Viking about is that most Romans would not see Athens as a model; more like a cautionary tale of the dangers of democracy.
I think the Romans most definitely thought their system was far superior to the Athenians. I think they felt like they were trying to do the same thing, just that the Romans succeeded and the Athenians failed. I do not agree that the felt they had nothing in common with what was going on in Athens. Again if they did not feel thay way why pick the year before Athens' Democracy as the date of the Republic's legendary founding? That was done for a reason.
No, thats because the romans thought that old = good so the roman republic was one year older than the athenian democracy and thus better.
Quote from: Viking on May 14, 2013, 12:20:15 PM
No, thats because the romans thought that old = good so the roman republic was one year older than the athenian democracy and thus better.
So it was just a total coincidence they just happen to pick the Athenenian Democracy? Please. They could have made it one year older than all sorts of things.
Which of the first two treaties with Carthage did Polybius see (referring to it as being inscribed in bronze tablets and containing archaic and difficult to understand Latin IIRC)? The first or the second?
If it was the first, which Polybius dated to 508 and Varro to 509BC, then it's actually possible that the date has nothing to do with Athens at all - that it is, in fact, as close an approximation of the actual date that the Romans could come up with because they had actual documents from the period.
Of course, this makes Polybius agree with Varro and not Livy, and both Polybius and Varro can be said to have had agendas (Polybius pro-Roman and Varro pro-Caesarian) so they might both be lying deliberately. On the other hand Polybius is unlikely given the detail to have been lying about the Treaty he has seen. Still, given their agendas it may have had something to do with Athens.
On the other hand, it may have been a simple mistake on Varro's part reinforced by his own reading of Polybius (he seems to have accounted for a four year discrepancy in the records twice in two different ways.) I found this article on the chronology problems with the early republic very interesting - Varronian Chronology (http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronology/varro.html)
Would it be appropriate to discuss the Republican conception of Romanism here, or should I start a new thread? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 01:28:15 PM
Would it be appropriate to discuss the Republican conception of Romanism here, or should I start a new thread? :unsure:
It would seem extremely appropriate. I find it interesting that the name most associated with the birth of the Principate-Caesar-is consciously of Spanish origin. Caesar abandoned his old-Roman Patrician roots for a non-Latin name. Surely related? I think men like Cassius and Brutus, Xenophobia and hostility to subjected peoples was a healthy Roman attitude.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 04:26:31 PM
It would seem extremely appropriate. I find it interesting that the name most associated with the birth of the Principate-Caesar-is consciously of Spanish origin. Caesar abandoned his old-Roman Patrician roots for a non-Latin name. Surely related? I think men like Cassius and Brutus, Xenophobia and hostility to subjected peoples was a healthy Roman attitude.
Caesar? He had a roman name, it was Julius. Caesar was not a name he adopted anyway it was used at least as far back as his Grandfather and it was just the cognomen of that branch of the Julian clan. I thought it was Gallic in origin though, but I do not think they meant anything anti-Roman about it.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 04:26:31 PM
It would seem extremely appropriate. I find it interesting that the name most associated with the birth of the Principate-Caesar-is consciously of Spanish origin. Caesar abandoned his old-Roman Patrician roots for a non-Latin name. Surely related? I think men like Cassius and Brutus, Xenophobia and hostility to subjected peoples was a healthy Roman attitude.
The first attested member of the
gens of the
Julii cognominated "Caesar" was a praetor from 208BC IIRC. Not necessarily from the Dictator's branch of the family, admittedly, as "Sextus" seems to have been a praenomen used by both branches (plus the "extra" Sextus who might have been Caesar's father's elder brother - or who might be the only recorded member of a third branch of the
Julii Caesares.)
That's hardly Caesar "abandoning his name", is it? Although the Spanish origin of the cognomen is one of the theories I've seen and would fit with the sudden emergence/re-emergence of this branch of the
gens in 208BC (it's one of the periods where a decent military reputation plus pedigree could make up for a lack of money in Roman Electoral politics; that the
Julii Caesares were relatively poor as patrician families went is probably best demonstrated by the fact that only one member of either branch of the family reached the Consulship in the Second Century BC.
There are other possible origins of the cognomen though, including some of purely Italian origin. There's no evidence, after all, that the Praetor of 208 was the first of the
Julii to use that cognomen, just that he was the first to rise sufficiently high on the
cursus honorum to be recorded..
As for xenophobia in Roman society...well, it certainly existed but even back in the days of the Republic the citizenship was achievable by non-Romans; in this respect Rome certainly compares favourably with Periclean and post-Periclean Athens. There's no real record of ongoing hostility towards most subject peoples, not even the descendants of Punic settlements outside of the immediate vicinity of Carthage in Africa.
Of course, there always has to be one exception to this. There was one particular group of people that Republican Romans did seem to have a special hatred for - Gauls. All the way back to the wars of the Third Century BC there seems to have been an especial degree of brutality involved in Roman wars against the Gauls, whether of Northern Italy, Gaul proper or the Celtic and Celtiberian regions of Spain. The Senones were expelled from their lands in Umbria for example, not conquered and taxed.
Caesar's overblown claims for how many Gauls he defeated in battle in the Commentaries are in many ways simply a reflection of the special piece of both hatred and fear that Romans held for Gauls/Celts.
And yet even despite there were Gauls achieving the citizenship in Cisalpine Gaul long before Caesar himself legislated citizenship for the region. It seems that only "free" Celts were the problem.
Hmm. I might have drawn too much from a simple cognomen. It is likely Spanish though.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
I might have drawn too much from a [fill in the blank]
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museum.tv%2Farchives%2Fetv%2FC%2FhtmlC%2Fcookealista%2FcookealistaIMAGE%2Fcookealista.jpg&hash=c62c23dc2da3c991a1fae8df5c64931eed629e14)
Here we have the essential Psellus experience.
Where are you guys getting this Spanish thing?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
Hmm. I might have drawn too much from a simple cognomen. It is likely Spanish though.
I thought it just meant 'hairy' (which I thought was sorta funny considering Julius Caesar went bald at such a young age...only in history would a bald man named 'hairy' come to power, in fiction it would just be too cheesy) and looking around it looks like it was of Itaian origin.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 14, 2013, 11:25:38 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
I might have drawn too much from a [fill in the blank]
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museum.tv%2Farchives%2Fetv%2FC%2FhtmlC%2Fcookealista%2FcookealistaIMAGE%2Fcookealista.jpg&hash=c62c23dc2da3c991a1fae8df5c64931eed629e14)
Here we have the essential Psellus experience.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 11:53:43 PM
Where are you guys getting this Spanish thing?
I think it's from the meaning that Caesar allegedly favoured - that it came from one of his ancestors killing an elephant, Caesar being a derivation of the Punic word for elephant. Since the first attested member of the Julii Caesares was a Praetor in 208 the probabilities favour this derivation having come via the Punic settlements in Spain possibly transmitted via Iberian or Celtiberian intermediaries.
Other possibilites include -
from "caesaries", Latin "hairy" or "a full head of hair"
from "caesius" a latin word describing "blue" or "blue-gray" eyes
from "caesum" a Latin word meaning "cut out" (presumed to indicate that an ancestor was born via what would today be termed Caesarian section)
from the Etruscan "Aisar" corrupted to "caisar" or "caesar" in Latin with the meaning of "deities" or "divine" (apparently favoured by moder Italian scholars and it does fit with the claimed divine lineage of the Julii, something Caesar himself was proud of.)
Quote from: fahdiz on May 14, 2013, 11:25:38 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 14, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
I might have drawn too much from a [fill in the blank]
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museum.tv%2Farchives%2Fetv%2FC%2FhtmlC%2Fcookealista%2FcookealistaIMAGE%2Fcookealista.jpg&hash=c62c23dc2da3c991a1fae8df5c64931eed629e14)
Here we have the essential Psellus experience.
I think my overall point still stands. Caesar was a friend to people who had no rights in the traditional Roman political framework.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 15, 2013, 09:12:22 AM
I think my overall point still stands. Caesar was a friend to people who had no rights in the traditional Roman political framework.
That's not exactly the case though. Yes, Caesar legislated citizenship for the people of Cisalpine Gaul thus being a "friend to people who had no rights etc."; however said new Citizens would all be his clients or the clients of his favoured subordinates. Power was always as important as the Cause for Roman Reformers - and with Caesar much more so than with either of the Gracchi or Drusus it's seems clear that the Power was far more important than the cause with any of his
Populares policies.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 15, 2013, 09:12:22 AM
I think my overall point still stands. Caesar was a friend to people who had no rights in the traditional Roman political framework.
The only people who had no rights in the traditional Roman political framework were slaves and I do not recall him being a friend to the slave. The Roman Empire was pretty different than the xenophobic oppressor you seem to be picturing. If that was really who they were their empire would not have endured. In fact their big source of strength, and their inability to do this with the Germans was a contributing factor to their fall in the west, was the fact they were not this way compared to say...the Greeks.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 15, 2013, 09:22:03 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 15, 2013, 09:12:22 AM
I think my overall point still stands. Caesar was a friend to people who had no rights in the traditional Roman political framework.
That's not exactly the case though. Yes, Caesar legislated citizenship for the people of Cisalpine Gaul thus being a "friend to people who had no rights etc."; however said new Citizens would all be his clients or the clients of his favoured subordinates. Power was always as important as the Cause for Roman Reformers - and with Caesar much more so than with either of the Gracchi or Drusus it's seems clear that the Power was far more important than the cause with any of his Populares policies.
I think Tiberius Gracchus was really the only guy with idealistic motives here, well at least at first. After that his career became a blueprint.