Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
We call them political parties...we should call them conglomerations.
THE FALL OF ROME???
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Except that most of our civil and commercial institutions down to this very day are based on the ground work laid by the Romans.
You're positing the old Greek vs Roman argument. The Greeks were certainly the greater philosophers but while the Greeks argued the merits of the realty of a ham sandwich the Romans got shit done.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Organized political parties maybe. As the great humorist Will Rogers said "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
All political parties are coalitions.
True they were employing many barbarians to fight other barbarians as the empire began to recede but I don't know if it that is because it was becoming to demanding [of Roman citizens] or as many have speculated, that the Roman populace just got lazy &/or ambivalent about warring when there was not much incentive for them in it..????
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It had more to do with the change in the legions mission from an aggressive one to a defensive one. The Empire essentially reached its extent under Trajan. From that point on the legions mission changed from a conquering force to a defensive force focused on defending the Roman frontiers. It became easier to recruit auxiliary troops from the local populace on the frontiers who either were hybrid Romans or non Romans. As time went on and as commanders of these auxiliary troops gained power these troops became full Roman. Citizens.
I suppose that most 'ordinary' Romans had been eliminated by the later days. For those who were poor the legions offered very good prospects indeed, but it was not applicable to the dead!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Not as appealing as you think. A man who made it through his 20 years in the legion would have, with his discharge award of monies and property, would have been considered quite wealthy by the standards of the day. However, even during the era of the Imperium the odds of surviving 20 years in the legions were about 50%. Not exactly appealing odds.
Many "non" Americans join our armed forces~see any parallels??
Paul Krugman uncovers chilling parallels between Trump, fascism and the fall of the Roman Republic
The parallels between the rise of fascism in the 1930s and the dawning of the Trump era are already frighteningly clear. So, Paul Krugman thought he’d do a little light reading about ancient Rome to take his mind off of the whole upsetting situation. Instead, he found some scary “contemporary resonances of some Roman history — specifically, the tale of how the Roman Republic fell,” he writes in Monday’s column.
Here’s what I learned: Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.
On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”
America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.
The republic technically survived, on paper anyway. The Senate lost all power and all decisions were made by the emperor. Krugman sees a similar destruction of the substance of our democracy and it is chilling.
Trump is far from the only sign that democracy is being subverted. Look at North Carolina, where the voters’ clear choice of a Democratic governor is being subverted by the. Republican legislature which has stripped him of power.
This is of a piece, Krugman argues, with efforts to discourage minority groups from voting. Trump even went so far as to thank African Americans for not voting. The result could be a “de facto one-party state,” Krugman writes. “One that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.”
Krugman’s theory is that the attack on democracy we are witnessing is driven by “careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support.” These careerists don’t respond well to criticism and viciously attack those who dare speak up.
Donald Trump didn’t start the sickness overtaking American democracy, though he may be the most perfect expression of it. But the destruction has been underway for decades, and thus that much harder to undo.
The parallels between the rise of fascism in the 1930s and the dawning of the Trump era are already frighteningly clear. So, Paul Krugman thought he’d do a little light reading about ancient Rome to take his mind off of the whole upsetting situation. Instead, he found some scary “contemporary resonances of some Roman history — specifically, the tale of how the Roman Republic fell,” he writes in Monday’s column.
Here’s what I learned: Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.
On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”
America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.
The republic technically survived, on paper anyway. The Senate lost all power and all decisions were made by the emperor. Krugman sees a similar destruction of the substance of our democracy and it is chilling.
Trump is far from the only sign that democracy is being subverted. Look at North Carolina, where the voters’ clear choice of a Democratic governor is being subverted by the. Republican legislature which has stripped him of power.
This is of a piece, Krugman argues, with efforts to discourage minority groups from voting. Trump even went so far as to thank African Americans for not voting. The result could be a “de facto one-party state,” Krugman writes. “One that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.”
Krugman’s theory is that the attack on democracy we are witnessing is driven by “careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support.” These careerists don’t respond well to criticism and viciously attack those who dare speak up.
Donald Trump didn’t start the sickness overtaking American democracy, though he may be the most perfect expression of it. But the destruction has been underway for decades, and thus that much harder to undo.
I read 'the decline and fall' too long ago to compare. But leaders matter and 'A History of Civilizations' by Fernand Braudel is an excellent read. Time line is interesting as is the Ted talk.
Civilizations
From bondage to spiritual faith
* From spiritual faith to great courage
* From great courage to liberty
* From liberty to abundance
* From abundance to selfishness
* From selfishness to complacency
* From complacency to apathy
* From apathy to dependence
* From dependence back to bondage
Source: In the early 1700s, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote this about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html
"Civilization has to be defended against the individual, and its regulations, institutions, and commands are directed to that task." Sigmund Freud
"The United States in the 1980s devoted 5.2-6.5 percent of its gross national product to military uses; Germany devoted less than half that, Japan less than 1 percent...The American resources so used were at cost to civilian investment and consumption; those so saved in Japan and Germany were available for civilian use and specifically for improving civilian industry. The matter of the use of trained manpower was particularly important. By some calculations, from a quarter to a third of all American scientific engineering talent in recent years was employed in relatively sterile weapons research and development. This talent the Japanese and the Germans devoted to the improvement of their civilian production. Japan, defeated in war by American industrial power, has now in peacetime extensively replaced its erstwhile enemy in productive service to the American consumer." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'
Civilizations
From bondage to spiritual faith
* From spiritual faith to great courage
* From great courage to liberty
* From liberty to abundance
* From abundance to selfishness
* From selfishness to complacency
* From complacency to apathy
* From apathy to dependence
* From dependence back to bondage
Source: In the early 1700s, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote this about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html
"Civilization has to be defended against the individual, and its regulations, institutions, and commands are directed to that task." Sigmund Freud
"The United States in the 1980s devoted 5.2-6.5 percent of its gross national product to military uses; Germany devoted less than half that, Japan less than 1 percent...The American resources so used were at cost to civilian investment and consumption; those so saved in Japan and Germany were available for civilian use and specifically for improving civilian industry. The matter of the use of trained manpower was particularly important. By some calculations, from a quarter to a third of all American scientific engineering talent in recent years was employed in relatively sterile weapons research and development. This talent the Japanese and the Germans devoted to the improvement of their civilian production. Japan, defeated in war by American industrial power, has now in peacetime extensively replaced its erstwhile enemy in productive service to the American consumer." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Only that it was a means to provide for manpower while assimilating them into our culture and thus spreading our values.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's probably about one of the dumbest articles Krugman ever published. There were many reasons why the Republic fell and to compare our Republic to the Roman republic is a strawman. You can make the argument Krugman makes about any President who advocated increasing the scope of powers of the executive branch.
The ancient Roman Republic was very little like our Republic and it's unwritten constitution was abused by politicians and demagogues though out the entire history of the Republic. Though the mos maiorum did provide traditional limits to power it did not contain the legal checks and balances and limits of power that our modern written constitutions does.
The primary reason that the Roman Republic failed was that the increasingly vast size of the new territories it gained in the second and first century B.C. placed in intolerable strain upon their Republican form of government. It was designed to meet the needs of a large and growing city state and not those of vast empire. It's system of appointing governors was notoriously corrupt. Roman Governors had absolute power in their provinces (seconded only to that years ruling Consuls) and most of them raped the resources of their province by either use of the legions, the publicani (tax farmers) and monopolistic business practices that enriched the governor and his legates but impoverished the local peoples. It was a kleptocracy on a grand scale and much of what was expropriated was taken by the governor to enhance his future political career. There were also no checks and balances of a governors power. He had absolute imperium within his province. He could not be gainsaid by any local authority, assembly or legislative body. The Roman provincial governor had absolute power of life and death within his province and only had to answer to that years elected consuls if one of them happened to be in his province. Which didn't happen often.
The incompetency and corruption of these provincial governors played a major role in the decline of the Republic as did the ager publicus, a change from a small free holder agricultural economy to large slave operated estates, weak central government, short sightedness by the Senate in providing adequate compensation to the legions, incompetent aristocratic military leaders who essentially destroyed the Republics free holding class (and Romes primary military class). These and an existential threat from a migrating barbarian horde necessitated changes, particularly military changes that vast unintended consequences. Careerism had little to do with it.
The beginning of the end of the Republic was when the brothers Gracchi were killed because they attempted agricultural reforms and wealthy land owners were pressing small holding farmers into service for many years at a time. Before these small holders fought during the warm months and when the weather became to cold for campaigning tended to their farms or families. They weren't away for long periods of times. Then the Republic began pressing them into the legion for assignments for from home for many years at a time. The free holder system of farming began to break down. With their men constantly being pressed into service their farms suffered and would go into debt. Then the same Republic that pressed them into the legions would take their small holding farms from them, for debt, and sell them on the cheap to the aristocrats of the Senate. These fine gentlemen then operated these vast farming operations with slaves, who's lives they had little regard for and could be bought relatively cheaply.
This change into a slave based economy had a profound effect as it impoverished large numbers of free rural people who could not find work on the farms so immigrated to Rome and other large cities in hopes of finding work. This swelled the population of Rome but mostly with illiterate poor rustics. It placed a brutal economic and political pressure on governing the city. The brothers Gracchi attempted to reform the agricultural laws to protect the Roman small holding farmers who were the functional unit of Roman society. They were Rome's primary source of agricultural, industrial and military man power. The Brothers Gracchi were murdered by members of the Senate who's co-opting the land of the small holders and using cheap slave labor was making them fabulously rich. Not even a hundred years later the Roman small holding class was virtually extinct. The Republic fell soon there after.
The loss of Roman small holders played a major role because it led to future acts with unintended consequences that diminished the power of the Senate and thus the Republic. With many of these now displaced rural workers ending up in Rome, Rome suffered a serious drain on it's public resources.
Then events played a hand in escalating the situation. During the later part of the 2nd century B.C. the Senate was in the habit of selecting men for overall military command from their own ranks who were high aristocrats but militarily incompetent. Time and again these incompetent aristocrats who believed that God just popped military knowledge into their aristocratic bodies when they were born and as one would suspect these men tended to get their armies annihilated. Men, by the way, that were small holding farmers. As more men were lost to these military bunglers Roman free small holders (Romes traditional soldier class) were virtually extirpated so the Republic began leaning heavily on their Italian allies for auxiliary troops who were auxiliary in name only. Since Roman Aristocratic militarily commanders were mostly bungling boobs it didn't take them long to wipe out most of the Italian small holders and those Italian small holders left over were largely sold into debt slavery by the Roman citizens they were indebted too. This created another major problem for the Republic that led to it's downfall, that it was unwilling to share its citizenship.
This was further complicated by that around this time, when Rome had an extreme shortage of eligible manpower that Rome was presented with an existential crisis via a horde of migrating Germanic barbarians around a half a million strong. Rome sent three Armies led by inept Generals to confront this horde. All three of these armies around 40,000 strong, were composed of Roman and Italian free holder soldiers. All three armies were virtually wiped out. The Romans reacted by reaching well beyond the bottom of their free holders (both Roman and Italian) to create two of the largest Roman armies ever. One led by Quintus Servilius Caepio a high patrician aristocrat and the other led Gnaeus Malleus Maximus a plutocrat and a homo novus (a Roman new man, the first of his family to achieve the consulship and thus enobling his family). Caepio was the governor of Italian Gaul and a pro-consul. Only the two elected consuls of the year. Those two consuls were Publius Rutilus Rufus and Gnaeus Mallius Maximus. Publius Rutilius Rufus had an extraordinary military career and was on of Rome's best generals. However he also had quite a few enemies in the Senate. When the latest (third) annihilation of a Roman army led by a blue blooded moron occurred the Senate ordered the Pro-Consul of Italian Gaul, Caepio, to cut off the German hordes advance towards the Arnos river near a town called Arausio. Which he did. The Senate then ordered the consuls to assemble another large army and to advance it to Arausio to combine with Caepio's army where the consul leading the army would take over all command of the combined armies. These combined armies would have been around 80,000 strong (with around 40,000 camp followers). Unfortunately the Senate made a short sighed decision that would have resounding consequences for the Republic. The leaders of the Senate, being enemies of Rufus said "fuck you" to that very capable man and appointed Malleus Maximus as commander of the army. Malleus, a Roman plutocrat, had virtually no military experience in command.
What happened next is almost unbelievable but it did happen. Malleus marched his army up to the Arnos river where he made three very grave military mistakes. The first was he built his camp to the north of the Arno with the river to his back. The second was he sent his entire cavalry wing to the north to set up camp and to scout the German barbarians leaving himself bereft of his intelligence source and cavalry support. He then issued the very wise order commanding Caepio, legally subordinate to Malleus, into his camp.
Caepio told Malleus, in no uncertain terms, that he, Quintus Servellius Caepio, a patrician Roman aristocrat who's family had helped found Rome, would not be taking any orders from a jumped up novus homo with no ancestors. This went on for a number of days where Malleus the general legally in command would order Caepio and his legions into his camp and Caepio tell the pretentious social mushroom Malleus to go fuck himself. What happened next is mind boggling. The Germans began their advance by attacking Malleus cavalry camp which they utterly destroyed. They then marched on Malleus camp where they began negotiating with the general. Caepio finding out that Malleus was negotiating with the Germans feared Malleus may conclude a peace agreement, turn the barbarian horde away and would win all the accolades. So while Malleus was negotiating with the Germans Caepio attacked them. The Germans, numbering around quarter of a million warriors simply did an about face and rolled over Caepio's camp so quickly that only Caepio and a handful of his staff officers were able to escape. His entire army, including the support followers were wiped out. Malleus then made his third and most critical mistake. He brought his army out and positioned them in a broad line in front of the Arno river. Instead of using the geography as he should of Malleus, the military neophyte made a basic tactical blunder and the German hordes just pushed his army into the river and slaughtered all but a handful of Malleus army.
The end result was an army of 80,000 with 40,000 support followers was wiped out. The largest Roman army every assembled was exterminated and the entire Italian peninsula laid open to invasion. All because a high aristocrat refused to take orders from his legal commander because his legal commander was a social mushroom. This was the battle for Arausio and it was Romes greatest defeat. It also had staggering political consequences for the Roman Republic that led to its ultimate demise.
The Roman and Italian free holders were wiped out. They essentially no longer existed as an economic, military or social institution. The Italian allies were enraged. They lost the best of their manhood to incompetent Roman generals who couldn't set aside their social differences for the best interest of Rome. For some reason known only to them and to posterity the Germans did not invade the Italian peninsula this gave the Romans the break they needed to deal with the Germans but that too had major consequences towards the fall of the Republic. As this lead to....
The Marian reforms. Fortunately for Rome not all of her generals were incompetent. After Arausio the public rage towards the Senate and the ruling oligarchy was palpable. They political squabbling had left the entire nation at risk of invasion. Why they were not was simply a stroke of fate and luck. To deal with the German hordes the Romans appealed to the greatest military man of that time and one of the all time greatest Roman Generals Gaius Marius. Marius was a brilliant military man but also a new man placing him at odds with the Senates ancient aristocrats. Because of the aftermath of Arausio the assemblies of Rome, where laws were actually made, over ruled the Senate and appointed Marius consul in absentia. This led to a total of five consecutive terms as Roman Consul, which had been unheard of in the entire history of the Republic. Marius didn't sit on his haunches. Marius made major reforms to the legions. Since small holders had been eliminated by the senatorial class they were no longer a viable source of military manpower. Marius had laws passed making the capite censi (head count) citizens eligible for military service. The Capite Censi were people so poor that they did not qualify for one of Romes five economic classes. The Senate in a profoundly short sighted action denied to provide arms and armor to these soldiers. Marius paid for them himself, then trained the head count soldiers. When he requested fund to pay these soldiers the Senate told Marius they would not pay a salary to head count soldiers. So Marius paid them.
This was another huge step in undermining the Republic as Marius soldiers and those of subsequent Roman armies were loyal to their General and not the State. Marius serving 5 consecutive terms as Consul had unforseen consequences. Though the Republic was in extremis due to the threat of the German hordes in the future other Generals saw that they could use the loyalty of the Army to empower them and they did as time went on. This did not bode well for the Republic.
In addition the Romans, as their empire expanded under the Republic. Refused to share their citizenship. This had two major consequences that helped to doom the Republic under the growing empire. First it prevented Roman culture, ideals, values, customs, etc, from being to and assimilated by the provinces which in turn created real resentment towards Rome. The resentment of the Italian allies, particularly after the crushing defeat at Arausio became so great at their second class status that they handed Rome an ultimatum. Reform the citizenship or go to war. Rome chose war and won the war but the cost of the Social Wars was ultimately the dissolution of the Republic.
So no we have a pretty long list of what caused the fall of the Roman Republic. An obsolete and antiquated form of government that could not govern a world wide empire, the switch from a free labor based economy to a slave labor economy, military reforms which led to soldiers being loyal to their Generals and not the State, civil unrest and inequities that caused civil wars and permitted war lords like Sulla, Pompey and Caesar to march on Rome with legions loyal to them and not the State. Careerism had little to do with it.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I apologize in that I did not have a chance to edit this post. Usually I'll just put my thoughts down in a rush and then go back and edit before I post. I didn't get a chance. She who must be obeyed had chores for me. It's pretty disjointed. I normally don't throw up a wall of text this poorly written. It's locked from editing so I don't believe I can go back and fix it.
That's unfortunate as I've done a lot of reading in recent years on the era of the late Roman Republic. It's one of the most fascinating historical events to study. Just this huge convergence of events and the simultaneous rise of men of genius (and some utter idiots and madmen) caused some extraordinary events that influence us to this day.
We should be clear on one thing. Rome never really fell. Rome the city fell and for nearly a millennia Europe stagnated but Rome itself lived on in the Vatican and the Holy Roman Empire which spread Roman Catholicism and along with it Roman cultural customs and institutions throughout almost the entire European continent. Economic, civil and political institutions too. Not just religious.
I think it's a misnomer to view Western History from a "Rome fell on 453 AD" standpoint. It would be more accurate to say the middle ages began on that date. Roman culture and Roman influence was alive and well. Rome the Capital city of a world wide empire was gone though. Rome did climb back to being the Capital of a world wide Empire, and a great one at that, but it's a religious one.
That's unfortunate as I've done a lot of reading in recent years on the era of the late Roman Republic. It's one of the most fascinating historical events to study. Just this huge convergence of events and the simultaneous rise of men of genius (and some utter idiots and madmen) caused some extraordinary events that influence us to this day.
We should be clear on one thing. Rome never really fell. Rome the city fell and for nearly a millennia Europe stagnated but Rome itself lived on in the Vatican and the Holy Roman Empire which spread Roman Catholicism and along with it Roman cultural customs and institutions throughout almost the entire European continent. Economic, civil and political institutions too. Not just religious.
I think it's a misnomer to view Western History from a "Rome fell on 453 AD" standpoint. It would be more accurate to say the middle ages began on that date. Roman culture and Roman influence was alive and well. Rome the Capital city of a world wide empire was gone though. Rome did climb back to being the Capital of a world wide Empire, and a great one at that, but it's a religious one.
Last edited:
How the fall of Rome mirrors the fall of the Democrat party? Make your first parallel.
Politics is on a continual pendulum, Ralphie. Get off the sauce.
Tis the season as they say. I've been real busy as well....
You don't feel "Rome" continued in the east?? Then after the renaissance to the great "west/USA"??
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well yeah.