Roman Conception of Republicanism

[Queequeg]

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? 

[Valmy]

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.

[Queequeg]

Would people have referred to "good Republican values" though? 

[Viking]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

Squeelus became a man while in Turkey.

[CountDeMoney]

Squeelus Maximus.

[Queequeg]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, like yesterday.

[Queequeg]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Tamas]

WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great

[Queequeg]

WTF dude, HBO's Rome is great

There's a lot done well and a few things done very poorly.

[Tamas]

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.

[Viking]

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.