Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Republic?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by SafricanAndy (U7173046) on Monday, 30th July 2007
There are many countries today which call themselves "republics" and many that don't i.e they call themselves "constitutional monarchies" or "kingdoms" or whatever...whether their respective heads of state have any real power or not...
Has anyone else perhaps noticed that many of the latter come closer to the republican model of Rome, than perhaps a so-called modern Republic, many of which have despotic rulers reminiscent of the early principate...
Would anyone care to elaborate upon the Roman concept of "res publica"? What modern nation (in the past 150-200 years) would come the closest to this?
Thanks... -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 30th July 2007
... perhaps USA? Afterall they also the Senators.
-
Message 3
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 1st August 2007
Canada also has senators, yet they're a constitutional monarchy.
-
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 3rd August 2007
No country that I know of in the modern age comes close to the Roman concept of Res Publica. The reason is simple - while the Roman term implies a form of democracy, and the voting protocols within that system (including the principle of a secret ballot) lends substance to the illusion, in the end of the day it was anything but a democracy. The 'public' referred to in the name for a start was not the entire population. In fact at no point in the history of Rome was the full extent of the population understood, let alone accurately measured, a first step towards exercising universal suffrage. Various attempts were made to quantify population for purposes of taxation, but these were notoriously unreliable statistics, even then.
It is better to see the Roman political system as a social contract that evolved from an agreement between the patriarchs and the ancient nobility. When monarchy was deemed untenable in a society cobbled together at its inception from an alliance of neighbouring states the leading clans adopted a system of power-sharing in which no one clan could claim dominion over the others. But the system they devised also guaranteed in equal measure that no one from outside that small coterie of powerful families could easily acquire power of any great substance. A modern parallel therefore would be the Sicilian Cosa Nostra (for good historical as well as sociological reasons) rather than any democracy.
Time, and the advent of empire, altered the structure considerably but the basic precept upon which Roman politics was built never changed much. Political parties never existed, for example, since policy was a matter for the individual politician, who was expected to formulate and implement his ideas independently in the manner of a patron - a role for which he would be 'lent' time and power to achieve his aims through dint of the temporary high office that he himself must struggle to achieve. To achieve this required approval from his peers, or massive support from his clients, and these divisions of class were represented by the separate voting colleges, none of whom had the power to usurp the others but all of whom could engineer a 'champion' into power.
The senate in Rome should not be confused with modern parliamentarian terminology either. In theory they were 'advisors' to the consul and whoever else held high office, but more crucially they were responsible for overseeing the administration of the system as defined in the legal codes. A better analogy would be with modern civil servants of the upper departmental echelons - powerful people but outside the democratic process in many ways. The senatorial class was also the 'launch pad' for those who would seek high office, as well as a 'consolation prize' for members of the patrician families who failed in that attempt. Even the emergence of an emperor did not change that role much. The senate continued much as it always had been and though some emperors sought to control and manipulate it, most realised that its presence as a political buffer between him and the masses served a very useful purpose.
As a political system reflecting a society that equated power with progress it was one of the sturdiest therefore that has ever existed. Its flaw however was that it operated best only when the basic delimeters that contained it were understood and accepted by its members (those outside the patrician classes could think what they want, it made no difference). This absolute adherence to accepted restrictions was bound to weaken as the state expanded. It did just that, but it should be remembered also that it managed to remain cohesive and durable even when the state had expanded to an extent that would have been deemed impossible to imagine by its founders. In the end however the sheer size of Rome demanded reforms that the rigid republic resisted, and the resulting tensions led invariably to its demise.
The other turning point was the creation of a professional army by Marius. This too was inevitable, but it opened up a whole new political arena in that from this point on, he who controlled the army (or a large portion of it) had a fast track into the political hub. Even if this development had not resulted in the ensuing social and civil wars it would have spelt the end of the old regime. The power exercised by the rigidly defined classes within that old system was executable only if all obeyed the restrictions placed upon each. This new avenue to power negated those restrictions by default and placed a need on the society to redefine itself - a traumatic process that resulted in yet another typical Roman compromise, the retention of the old terminology and a lot of the existing function of state, but under the auspices of a permanent consul who was expected to keep the relationship between army and state in check.
This creation of an emperor however did not see the end of a 'golden age' of democratic principles in operation. It was simply an extension of the old precepts in a more transparent and honest form - which was why Rome never looked back afterwards. Empire was a continuation of Roman politics as they had always been, and the 'republic' that was dismantled to make way for this new ruler was simply the power-sharing agreement that had long outlived its usefulness. -
Message 5
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Friday, 3rd August 2007
There are many countries today which call themselves "republics" and many that don't i.e they call themselves "constitutional monarchies" or "kingdoms" or whatever...whether their respective heads of state have any real power or not...
Has anyone else perhaps noticed that many of the latter come closer to the republican model of Rome, than perhaps a so-called modern Republic, many of which have despotic rulers reminiscent of the early principate...
Would anyone care to elaborate upon the Roman concept of "res publica"? What modern nation (in the past 150-200 years) would come the closest to this?
°Υ³σ²Ή²Τ°μ²υ...Μύ
Res publica, βthat which belongs to the peopleβ. It was the Roman aristocrats that provided leadership for the establishment of the Roman Republic and this was the case for centuries. The Roman Republic lasted for five centuries and during that time it grew from being a small city to a cosmopolitan metropolis with an empire of 15 million subjects. Although the Senate officially only played an advisory role, nevertheless, it was greatly respected as the seat of Roman tradition and wisdom. In some ways it is reminiscent of modern U.S.A. -
Message 6
Posted by SafricanAndy (U7173046) on Friday, 3rd August 2007
Thanks nordmann. Wow, you should write a book!
I've often wondered why so many books draw sharp distinction between the republic and the principate with regard to the investment of power in one man, the "princeps", or emperor, as if it was a sudden and unprecedented change...but reading your response (essay, more like) it really makes a lot of sense...it was a natural progression of what existed previously, but necessitated by the successes and progress of the romans in conquering so many lands (which of course led to the many social and military
reforms)....
I have subsequently read somewhere that the Republic of Venice considered itself in some ways, an heir to the republican system of Rome...any thoughts on that? -
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 3rd August 2007
Venice did indeed style itself as a 'second Rome', though in truth this did great disservice to their Byantine neighbours (and erstwhile overlords) who were the real heirs to Roman rule. Nor was it the only principate that attempted to emulate the political structure of its predecessor when it did. Various Italian states - to different degrees of accuracy - set up offices and departments with limited representational authority invested in the people.
But Venice excelled in matters of trade, and in that respect they have a good claim on being the true inheritors of Roman ideals. Rome too had used trade as a vehicle by which it defined itself, and by which it identified the world around it. Conquest of that world had rested primarily in the pursuit of wealth and was seen as a natural extension of the trading relationship it had previously held with what had once been neighbours but had then been incorporated into the state.
Venice too pursued such an expansionist policy, and for much the same reasons, and it is arguable that it had the misfortune to be around at the same time as the powerful Ottoman dynasty was itself pursuing expansion - not overtly for financial reasons but motivated by territorial gain for the purpose of protecting its ideological base. The evidence for the difference is in the huge drop in living standards and status of people who were forcibly transferred from Venetian to Ottoman overlordship.
Ironically Venice's demise came finally at the hands of yet another country that had shamelessly modelled itself on Roman precedents - Napoleonic France. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 3rd August 2007
Very interesting comments!I am 100% on that. It is amazing to what extend the legacy of Rome somehow still was present in politics after more than a millenium.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.