Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Roman Republic

Rate this topic


Praxus

Recommended Posts

Isn't in republic the head of the state elected by the people. In Rome too, the head of the state was elected by people, or just by the nobles?

In Republican Rome there were two heads of state which were called 'consuls'. I believe they were elected by both the senate and the assembly. They served for one year. Any major issue (ie going to war) required unanamity, both had to agree. In times of crisis, Rome would enstate a 'dictator', which had total power for a limited time; ie 6 months or untill the crisis ended.

This was used during the war with Hanibal when the legendary Quintus Fabius Maximus was elected Dictator to deal with the Cartheneginian threat. It was also used even more famously during the war with the Celts in roughly 300 BC when Rome itself was overrun and the citizens were forced to flee. A dictator named Cincinatus was elected to deal with the Celts. He was a great general who was retired and living and working on his farm as a farmer. (He is also the inspiration behind Maximus in the movie 'Gladiator') He came out of retirement, defeated the Celts and returned to his farm before his reign as dictator ended. He actually renounced power. It is no suprise that Cincinatus was loved by George Washington who was a member of the 'Cincinatus club', especially after he retired.

The Romans were smart enough to know that in crisis situations sometimes consensus rule is not practical and leadership should be in the hands of one strong willed man. Thus the dictator, which is the origin of our word today, although the term has come to mean the wielding of and total abuse of absolute power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't in republic the head of the state elected by the people. In Rome too, the head of the state was elected by people, or just by the nobles?

Also, it would be incorrect to take comments in favor of Cicero and Republican Rome as implying that they were faultless paragons of Objectivism. They certainly had their faults, but I like to think it is a characteristic of being objective that when one position is 98% correct, and another position is 5% correct, the objective thing to do is praise the one that is 98% right, rather than focusing primarily on its 2% errors and applauding the 95% wrong position.

To focus on Cicero's faults as equivalent in importance to his virtues would be analogous to Ayn Rand's example of including a blister in a painting a beautiful woman. The resulting distortion says much more about the person who is making it than it does about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Cicero the first person to recognize "natural law"?

This is actually a fascinating subject which I am about to study right now. What I can say is that many scholars place the origins of natural law with the Greek Stoic school of philosophy of which Cicero was very influenced by. The Stoics were the leading philosophical school for much of Roman History although all four of the major Greek schools of philosophy had their influence.

The four schools, by the way, were recognized by the Roman Emporer Marcus Aurileus when he endowed four chairs I believe in Athens recognizing each of the four schools; the Platonists, the Peripitetics (Aristoteleans), the Stoics, and the Epicurians. The Greko/Roman moralists of the Imperial period were an eclectic mix of these four schools with an emphasis on Stoicism. Aristoteleanism was present but was not the dominant thought system. If it were, history might have gone differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true that Marcus Aurileus like the movie Gladiator depicts tryed to restore the Republic?

No. There is no attempt to restore the Republic made at any time after its fall. Aurileus was the last of what has come to be known as 'The Five Great' Emporers of the 2nd century AD. He originally shared power with his brother Lucius Verus as co-emporer before his brother died. He is known as being merciful for this as he could easily have had his brother killed. He was a great administrator and the Empire functioned smoothly under his reign. However, it is with his son, Comodus, that Rome starts its decent. Comodus is, I believe, one of the first of what is know as the "idiosyncratic emporers".

Although, to be accurate, Rome would redefine itself at least three or four more times before it falls, and then its 'fall' is really only in the west as the eastern empire lived on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Carthage was a very wealthy trade city, with a decent constitution. But the moral fiber of its people was very lacking, whereas, as Polybius shows, Romans were quite the opposite at the time.

Btw, Carthaginians still practiced human sacrifice even in Hannibal's time - child sacrifice, to be specific. Many child bones have been found at what is believed to be a temple of Baal, their version of Zeus. The city was a wreck during the Punic Wars, torn by competition of a handful of extremely powerful families and in perrenial conflicts with its mercenaries. Thus Hannibal did not get reinforcements when he was in Italy because an opposing family prevented it. Plus, as Polybius says, Carthaginian citizens were almost never called up for war, and were effeminate and shifty in contrast to the hardy Romans.

Rome was the model for America in more than one way. First, the actual government institutions closely mirror those of Roman Republic (see electoral college, for example, and govt. buildings' architecture and names, such as Capitol Hill). Second, the Roman people were a model for the American people to follow - hence the Founding Fathers' dream of a country of farmers who own their small plots of land but come together in defense of liberty. Modern revisionists often make fun of this dream as pathetic and naiive, as it might seem to those born after the Industrial Revolution. But for those living in pre-Industrial Enlightenment, it was a noble idea indeed.

A trade republic such as Rhodes and Carthage might have been impressive to the Founding Fathers, but an agrarian society of hardy small farmers was their true ideal. Originally America was brimming with Rome-worship: look at the name Cinncinati, a "city of men as virtuous as Cinncinatus". Mildly ironic huh?

Oh and I can go on forever about the Roman institution of dictatorship, something that is without equal in the ancient world, as far as I know. To have a fully electoral government, and then to be able to give it up and place one's lives and hopes in one man's hands, when incredible emergencies came up, is a sign of a pretty remarkable people. Moreover, men chosen as dictators have never violated their power, in 400 years of Republic's existence, despite the fact that their power was absolute, and they could legally kill anyone and steal anything they wished. A sign of remarkable people indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...