Explanation: Julius Caesar is sometimes regarded as the man who destroyed the Roman Republic. This is a… contentious position for numerous reasons, not least of which being the extreme dysfunction caused by the conservative faction (Optimates) of the Republic.
Conservatives
It’s always the people you most suspect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates_and_populares
That seems to be 19th century historical revisionism. The only thing we really know about them politically is they were diverse but all wanted power to remain with the senate, compared to the other faction of populares that focused on popular assemblies.
That seems to be 19th century historical revisionism. The only thing we really know about them politically is they were diverse but all wanted power to remain with the senate, compared to the other faction of populares that focused on popular assemblies.
It’s not 19th century historical revisionism to regard the Senatorial aristocracy as deeply conservative (in the sense of maintaining the supremacy of the aristocracy against reforms from the lower-class), especially the Senatorial aristocracy of the Late Republic. The Senate was the aristocratic bastion of the Republic’s system, and openly so. The Optimates pretty freely used the term boni amongst themselves to imply conservative leanings or joining the conservative faction.
The core issues of the Optimates were not diverse in the least - it would be more correct to say that political allegiance was often fluid and that there was no formal boundary for membership - the description was more ‘conservative and liberal’ than ‘Republican and Democrat’, to use an Americentric comparison.
There were a few core ideologues who were lifelong adherents of a faction, whatever their reasons (Cato amongst the Optimates and Caesar amongst the Populares for some famous examples), a larger number of moderates who generally, but not always, aligned with the faction (Cicero for the Optimates, Memmius for the Populares), and a much larger number of opportunists, who swapped with the changing winds (Crassus and Catiline, starting with the Optimate faction and shifting to the Populares; Pompey, starting with the Optimates, shifting towards the Populares, and then back towards the Optimates).
Through the lens of modern times, I’ve begun to see the entire Roman empire as a self-reinforcing system that created ever-increasing economic disparity for the benefit of a constantly decreasing number of powerful people. By the time reforms were clearly needed, vested interests were too well-situated to resist them.
The pretenses of democratic society were protected only by the prevailing norms of political conduct, and if you had to name any names for the fall of the empire, it would be hard to lay blame even at the feet of the Gracchi brothers or those who killed them, much less at Caesar’s.
Perhaps mere norms will always be insufficient to sustain an unsustainable state of affairs. We humans are so clever and ambitious, but too rarely wise and foresighted.
Through the lens of modern times, I’ve begun to see the entire Roman empire as a self-reinforcing system that created ever-increasing economic disparity for the benefit of a constantly decreasing number of powerful people.
But that’s not how it happened? The height of economic disparity in the Roman polity was focused in the Late Republic and the Late Empire, with a vast period inbetween - including the majority of the period that most people think of when they think of the “Roman Empire” - where economic disparity was reduced rather than intensified.
The pretenses of democratic society were protected only by the prevailing norms of political conduct
That’s the thing, though - the prevailing norms of political conduct in the Roman Republic were generally anti-democratic. The violation of those (vile) political norms are what provoked a (illegal) reaction from the conservatives.
Perhaps mere norms will always be insufficient to sustain an unsustainable state of affairs. We humans are so clever and ambitious, but too rarely wise and foresighted.
Yeah. All systems are an arms race of intellects, one side seeking to exploit, and one to close loopholes. And with little consistency in who takes which side from issue-to-issue.
Is it not so that there was a point at which Roman soldiers, who were drawn entirely from land-owning citizenry, had the empire eventually caught between the need for concessions to non-Roman Italians and the cause of the populares? All the land being owned by great estates, the equestrian class gaining increasing economic power due to optimates not being interested in commerce, and all the trouble that was caused once the Gracchi brothers demonstrated the true power of using the tribune position in ways not anticipated by political norms? I confess I only have a few overview courses under my belt. My point was only that the late republic’s interests abroad became a source of material disparity that was likely to collapse eventually - drawing a crude and/or sly comparison to current events.
When I made references to democracy, I was speaking only of the fact that there was voting being done - even though there was, I understand, an amount of flaws and limitations to democratic expression that we would not find inspiring even though our own systems are so badly flawed. I did call them pretenses of democracy.
Is it not so that there was a point at which Roman soldiers, who were drawn entirely from land-owning citizenry, had the empire eventually caught between the need for concessions to non-Roman Italians and the cause of the populares?
The early Populares, when the land-owning citizenry were still nominally a concern for military manpower, were in favor of concessions to non-Roman Italians. The later Populares existed in a scenario where the Roman Legions freely enlisted landless citizens, and the concessions to non-Roman Italians had already been made and were no longer a major concern.
All the land being owned by great estates, the equestrian class gaining increasing economic power due to optimates not being interested in commerce, and all the trouble that was caused once the Gracchi brothers demonstrated the true power of using the tribune position in ways not anticipated by political norms?
The first issue, though a genuine concern, is also often overemphasized. Freeman farmers remained in control of a large proportion of Italian land, and arguably the bigger actual problem was the decline in usage of paid tenant labor by the great estates due to the influx of slaves from successful wars in the 2nd century BCE, which led directly to a glut in the slave supply relative to the citizen population that would be literally unequalled in Roman history.
The second issue is not really core to the Late Republic’s problems, and certainly not the Empire’s. The Senatorial class was very interested in commerce, but legally barred from directly participating in large-scale commerce. The loophole was to use the Equestrian class as their agents and reaping a portion of the profits. Many of the more sensible reforms involved bringing the Equestrian class into a greater share of power in the Republic at the expense of the Senatorial class - something many conservative Senators wished to avoid. There was no sense in giving the Equestrians more bargaining power, after all!
The third, I would argue, was an effect more than a cause.
I confess I only have a few overview courses under my belt. My point was only that the late republic’s interests abroad became a source of material disparity that was likely to collapse eventually - drawing a crude and/or sly comparison to current events.
Ah, I see. I thought you meant the entirely of the history of the Roman polity when you said ‘Empire’, rather than the fall of the Republic/that phase of the Republic (hence me bringing up the Late Empire).
In that case, I’m in agreement - the concentrated wealth caused by the Republic’s expansion exacerbated class conflicts to a degree that the institutions of the Republic were simply not made to handle.
When I made references to democracy, I was speaking only of the fact that there was voting being done - even though there was, I understand, an amount of flaws and limitations to democratic expression that we would not find inspiring even though our own systems are so badly flawed. I did call them pretenses of democracy.
My point here, though, isn’t denigration of the democratic features of the Republic (meagre though they were), but rather pointing out that the norms violated by the Populares were very often leveraging the nominal and formal strength of what democratic powers there were against unwritten norms that those democratic powers were not to be used against the Senatorial aristocracy’s interests or consent.
Democratic laws (or processes) against anti-democratic norms, if you will.
Thanks for this. Important to keep historical comparisons to current events as specific and factual as possible, it is always tempting to become too strident.
Like I said, you’re absolutely right about the accumulation of wealth in the upper classes being core to the Republic’s fall! I just thought you were talking about the lifespan of the entire Roman polity as on a trend of ever-worsening wealth disparity.
Perish the thought, it’s just that I’ve paid most attention to the later portion of Roman history. My favourite part of any story is the ending. 🙃
You sound Luke a real Cicero, my friend!
Crassus. Crassus killed the Roman Empire by allowing the huns to burn it down, while he was charging for firefighter services.
/s
HE CAN’T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT
The Roman empire fell like 5 different times over the course of 2000 years.
yeah and whose fault was that i’m looking at you honytawk
Yes but we are specifically referencing rhe republic.
The fall of the republic was not the fall of Rome. It was the end of democracy and the rise of emperors.
tbf, the conflict that characterized the Late Republic was of the defenders of the Republic being enemies of democracy; while those destablizing the Republic being nominal allies of democratic processes.
