Rome

[Korina]

Hi everyone. I'm new here and have a question.

What were the major cultural and socio-political differences between the Roman Republic and Empire?

[GWDS]

Well, to give a brief, concise answer to your question,

The first thing that comes to my mind is the army. Earlier in the Republic the army was madeup largely by romans who fought for the Republic. Later on, in the ages of Empire, the romans were a minoirty in the army which was now the main political player exploiting this power to control the government in Rome and abroad.

Other than that its really hard to answer, each emperror had the power to make sweeping changes to the society, and then there's the rise of the church....

Can you narrow your question a little?

[AwakeAndFree]

Hi everyone. I'm new here and have a question.

What were the major cultural and socio-political differences between the Roman Republic and Empire?

Both the Republic and the Empire lasted for centuries, so it will be hard to generalize. In many senses the late Republic is very much like the early Empire under Augustus.

Of course, in one crucial sense they were different: the concentration of power in the hands of one man instead of many.

[Free Capitalist]

Major cultural differences:

The Republic was intensely ethical for most of its existence, and strongly averse to violence. In other places, even Greece, where some groups of people got mad at other groups of people, usually they killed them off or applied the power of government to make them more malleable. In Rome, what did the plebeians do when felt oppressed by the patricians? They didn't go on murderous rampage, they simply packed up and peacefully moved out of Rome to a nearby hill. Then the patricians became in a more agreeable mood.

The Empire had no real concern with virtue or moral standards. Some of the intellectuals and leaders certainly did, but the general populace at large did not. Unlike the Republic when the aristocrats were matched by the common people, the Empire was only as good as its current leader or king. In the first two centuries, when the intellectuals and emperors were generally Stoic and still concerned with ethical standards, the Empire flourished. When the emperors became weak, the Empire crumbled. Compare this with the early pre-Republican Roman kings. When they became intolerable, the Roman state did not collapse, but the Roman people kicked the kings out and established the Republic.

Major political differences:

The Republic was free, the Empire was not. That's essentially what the difference was. The Republic was founded on the rule of law, the Empire on the rule of the sword. When good emperors held the sword the Empire flourished, but when bad ones got a hold of it, the Empire fell.

The other major difference between Republic and the Empire that you didn't ask about:

The religion under the Republic was essentially the same one as practiced by the Greeks during the Archaic and Classical eras. It was a religion without any hint of altruism, a religion when the gods looked like men, and when even they were subordinate to the laws of reality. It was the opposite of a supernatural religion: a natural religion.

The Empire, at first, was pagan too, though it gave up the ancient Roman gods by then. A mishmash of new Greek and Eastern religions poured in, which is what the common men were concerned with. The Egyptian religion prepared them for Christianity, the force that really destroyed the Roman empire. The more Christian it became, the more its people became effete, otherworldly, and passive.

At the same time as their borders were beset by vigorous and numerous barbarians, Romans began to believe that compromise, negotiation were the best tools of foreign policy, started to condescendingly look down upon the army as more of a curse than a protector to a civilized society, and began to think that there was no point to really try to do anything in this life, except to be charitable and not too judgmental to anyone lest the feelings of those people were hurt. Sound familiar?

Edited March 7, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Alon]

Here is the perfect example of history embellished to exalt virtue (embodied in republicanism) as opposed to vice (emboddied in tyranny) and losing sight of reality altogether.

"The Republic was intensely ethical for most of its existence, and strongly averse to violence."

Let the record show Free Capitalist described my knowledge of ancient history as ridiculous. Now onto business...

The vast majority of the Roman empire was conquered under the Republic. The Republic was an extremely violent regime which from the period of the 2nd Punic War (218 - 202 BC) to the middle of the first century BC knew almost no years of peace, and in that period came to possess most of the territories of the empire until its fall.

As a matter of fact, the only territories added under the Principate were Britannia (under Claudius), Dacia, additions to Syria, and Mesopotamia (which did not remain a part of the empire for very long).

The rivalry between Rome's upper classes for political power was so intense that it led to three bloody civil wars in a period of almost 50 years. It was in part this tremendous violence that led Romans to accept the loss of political freedom in order to have peace.

Furthermore, slavery was far more brutal under the Republic than under the Principate. Three major slave revolts (involving whole armies of rebels) occured in the last century of the Republic. I know of none which occured under the Principate.

Perhaps the worst defect of the Republic, in comparison to the Principate, is the treatment of provincials. Under the Republic, former Consuls were commissioned by the Senate to govern the provinces, where they acted as virtual dictators. Consuls often saw the provinces as a chance to refill their coffers (through excessive taxation) after waging political campaigns. As a result, the Republic experienced many more rebellions in the provinces - including civilized ones, such as in the Hellenistic east - than the Principate, which much more actively sought to integrate the Roman world.

"In other places, even Greece, where some groups of people got mad at other groups of people, usually they killed them off or applied the power of government to make them more malleable. In Rome, what did the plebeians do when felt oppressed by the patricians? They didn't go on murderous rampage, they simply packed up and peacefully moved out of Rome to a nearby hill. Then the patricians became in a more agreeable mood."

This is, of course, but one incident, not proof that the Romans were averse to violence under the Republic. As a matter of fact, at times the people of Rome could be roused to such heights that the mob was used by demagogues to vanquish political opponents.

Would a society averse to violence really uphold the killing of children treasonous to the state as a moral virtue?

More later...

[Free Capitalist]

Um Alon,

Free Capitalist described my knowledge of ancient history as ridiculous

Where?

Now on to the rest of your post...

Your entire attack focuses on Rome of the 1st century BC, so I'd like to hear some arguments about events before that time. The political system of the first century was not a Republic at all, but a dictatorship in the making. so since your examples against the Republic are from that century, they do not count. Yes, it's that simple.

I could just as easily draw on the 5th century AD and claim that the Empire as such, for its entire duration, had an effete and rotten public, a pathetic military, and no strong central leadership, which had by then degenerated into a primitive feudal system. This description is true, but it wouldn't be very accurate of me to describe the entire duration of the empire by it, now would it? Nor would it of you to do the same to the Republic, which you were.

So yes, I'd like to hear some examples of slave revolts and widespread slavery even in the 2nd century BC, if not earlier. Dates, names, numbers please if you have them - which I know you don't.

I'd also like for you to tell us just how corrupt the Consuls during the 2nd Punic War were - that Fabius Maximus sure was condemnable, right? And don't get me started on Scipio Africanus, the corruptest of them all right? Unless you think we should dig deeper. Titus Manlius was pretty bad huh? Furius Camillus? Publius Valerius? Lucius Iunius Brutus? Let's hear some.

Even during the crumbling 1st century, why don't you mention Cato, Cicero, men of the kind of character that I and most other people on this forum can only dream of equalling. Even the African prince Juba who helped them was a model. Even Brutus, Caesar's slayer, was and is a role model. Why don't you mention them?

The Republic was an extremely violent regime

Yes it was violent. But why was it violent, for what reasons? That you still have to answer. Merely stating a fact proves nothing. Violence in and of itself is not a vice, unless you're prepared to accuse America of being violent and therefore somehow automatically evil.

Here is the perfect example of history embellished to exalt virtue as opposed to vice

Are you calling me a liar? Are you calling Edward Gibbon, the model historian of our age a liar? How about Dio, Tacitus, Livy, Dionysius Halicarnassensus, Cicero, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus? All rotten liars, yes? Only our modern enlightened age has overcome the unforgivable defects of the past historians who barely deserve the title, right? As I said before, this mindset predominant among historians and classicists today is the very height of conceit and presumptiousness, and it's very unfortunate that you've bitten it as well.

Here is the perfect example of history embellished to exalt virtue as opposed to vice

To exalt virtue as opposed to vice, and to teach the reader how the historical subject reached the former or the latter, is one of the proper purposes of history. The ancients believed this, and so did the men of the Enlightenment. It's one of the sins of our time that most historians today do not.

virtue (embodied in republicanism) ... vice (emboddied in tyranny)

Yes, that is precisely where each of the two resides in. Are you prepared to argue otherwise?

---

The poster asked for differences between the Republic and the Principate, not for a cynical post against the Republic. I am more than willing to debate this with you, but the record should state that out of all possible subjects to discuss, you chose to inveigh against the Republic. When thinking of a reply to this thread, there was nothing more important to you than prevent my pro-Republican post to stand unchallenged. That, alone, says more than I ever could.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[EC]

Korina--getting a little more than you expected? Welcome to the forum!

[Korina]

Korina--getting a little more than you expected? Welcome to the forum!

Yes, I love it.

Thanks for the warm welcome. I think I'll stay a while and observe these powerful minds at work!!

I will have additional questions pertaining to Rome, Islam, Middle Ages - I hope you're ready.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Korina

[Free Capitalist]

For the record, it's quite possible to make an argument in favor of the Empire, along the lines Edward Gibbon himself seems to have given. Alon's argument however is anithetical in spirit both to Gibbon's view and to mine.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Free Capitalist]

Korina, I welcome further questions from you.

[Alon]

Mine was not an attack on the Roman Republic – far from it, the Republic was one of the factors (if not the foremost factor) that made Rome great – but on your statement that it was “intensely ethical for most of its existence, and strongly averse to violence.”

I therefore set out to demonstrate that, contrary to your Romanticized version of history, the Roman Republic, for all its greatness, was not a Utopia of Lockean liberalism.

Compared to the governments and institutions of its age Rome far surpassed any civilization. Yet in reading your account of the Republic one would think it ranks with the political institutions of 18th & 19th century Britain or America.

“I could just as easily draw on the 5th century AD and claim that the Empire as such, for its entire duration, had an effete and rotten public, a pathetic military, and no strong central leadership, which had by then degenerated into a primitive feudal system. This description is true, but it wouldn't be very accurate of me to describe the entire duration of the empire by it, now would it? Nor would it of you to do the same to the Republic, which you were.”

Feel free to attack the Principate, I shall commend you for it. But on a serious note, you are correct. The whole period known as the Principate cannot be swept with one brush – but then, nor can the Republic.

Although the traditional founding of the Republic dates to 509 BC, many of the political institutions, which embodied the freedom enjoyed by Roman citizens, were created at a later date. Both according to the ancient sources and the skeptical belief of some modern historians.

If we are to say that “[the Republic was] intensely ethical for most of its existence” or otherwise, then we will have to agree on the dates in which the Republic was astill a thoroughly oligarchic regime and when it became more democratic. And then qualify our statements by specifying which era is in question.

I cannot confidently discuss the very early Republic because our only sources for the era are historians who wrote hundreds of years later and could not but lavish praise on it, having a specific interest in returning to the older way of life.

Therefore my earlier comments apply wholly to the late 3rd century BC and onwards. But one cannot ignore the fact that from the overthrow of the monarchy to the 2nd Punic War, a period of less than 300 years, Rome came to possess the whole of the Italian peninsula, and it did not bestow citizenship on the Italian peoples (with a few exceptions) until the conclusion of the Social War in 88 BC.

“I'd like to hear some examples of slave revolts and widespread slavery even in the 2nd century BC, if not earlier.”

The revolts I speak of occurred in 135 BC in Sicily, the whole island was taken over by slaves who established a short-lived kingdom. At around the same time a slave revolt occurred in northern Greece. The 2nd slave revolt in Sicily occurred in 103 BC and lasted 3 years. The last is the famous Spartacus revolt in 73 BC.

“I'd also like for you to tell us just how corrupt the Consuls during the 2nd Punic War were.”

Had you read my statement you would have understood I was referring to the typical habit of Roman proconsuls to levy heavy taxes in the provinces. I did not say they were corrupt in governing Rome. If you have any sources on how all those consuls you mentioned dealt with the provincials they ruled as proconsuls, I would love to read them.

“Even during the crumbling 1st century, why don't you mention Cato, Cicero, men of the kind of character that I and most other people on this forum can only dream of equalling. Even the African prince Juba who helped them was a model. Even Brutus, Caesar's slayer, was and is a role model. Why don't you mention them?”

Because my goal was to disprove your statement, not suggest role models. I know there were great Romans through most of the city’s history, and you know that. But men like Cicero, Cato, and Brutus were exceptions to the rule.

“Yes it was violent. But why was it violent, for what reasons? That you still have to answer. Merely stating a fact proves nothing. Violence in and of itself is not a vice, unless you're prepared to accuse America of being violent and therefore somehow automatically evil.”

Merely stating that it was violent, and giving supporting evidence, proves exactly what I intended, that it was not strongly averse to violence. If you will bring up the question of how and why, I shall oblige.

“Are you calling me a liar?”

No. I am saying that you don’t seem to care for a scientific study of history. You prefer to read stories of glorious deeds and heroes – that’s all well and good, I like bedtime readings, too. But I am also interested in discovering who exactly the Romans were, how they lived, what they thought – in short, what really happened. So I will not be content with a 1st century BC bard’s account of the 8th century BC.

“Yes, that is precisely where each of the two resides in. Are you prepared to argue otherwise?”

No. I agree. But the point of the statement was that you moralize at the expense of historical fact.

[Free Capitalist]

Well, the first thing I'd like to reply to real quick is this accusation:

But one cannot ignore the fact that from the overthrow of the monarchy to the 2nd Punic War, a period of less than 300 years, Rome came to possess the whole of the Italian peninsula, and it did not bestow citizenship on the Italian peoples (with a few exceptions) until the conclusion of the Social War in 88 BC.

Who ignores this fact, and why should anyone ignore it? Does some ancient state have a better track record than Rome for inclusion of other peoples and immigrants? Does mildly xenophobic Classical Athens? What about horrendously xenophobic Classical Sparta? Carthage? These are your best examples, because to them the notion of citizenship still mattered; the Hellenistic Era does not apply, because citizenship ceased to matter. And of course the rest of the world had not even a conception of citizenship or moral government at the time, so they completely cannot even qualify to be in this comparison.

Historically speaking of the original polis as the cradle of Western civilization, when citizenship was important to a city-state, its people were invariably hostile to foreigners; and despite this, no true city-state in antiquity was more open to an infusion of other peoples than Rome.

I will close this interlude of a post with a quote from Dionysius (I. 89):

Such, then, are the facts concerning the origin of the Romans which I have been able to discover a reading very diligently many works written by both Greek and Roman authors. Hence, from now on let the reader forever renounce the views of those who make Rome a retreat of barbarians, fugitive and vagabonds, and let him confidently affirm it to be a Greek city, — which will be easy when he shows that it is at once the most hospitable and friendly of all cities, and when he bears in mind that the Aborigines were Oenotrians, and these in turn Arcadians, and remembers those who joined with them in their settlement, the Pelasgians who were Argives by descent and came into Italy from Thessaly; and recalls, moreover, the arrival of Evander and the Arcadians, who settled round the Palatine hill, after the Aborigines had granted the place to them; and also the Peloponnesians, who, coming along with Hercules, settled upon the Saturnian hill; and, last of all, those who left Troy and were intermixed with the earlier settlers. For one will find no nation that is more ancient or more Greek than these. But the admixtures of the barbarians with the Romans, by which the city forgot many of its ancient institutions, happened at a later time. And it may well seem a cause of wonder to many who reflect on the natural course of events that Rome did not become entirely barbarized after receiving the Opicans, the Marsians, the Samnites, the Tyrrhenians, the Bruttians and many thousands of Umbrians, Ligurians, Iberians and Gauls, besides innumerable other nations, some of whom came from Italy itself and some from other regions and differed from one another both in their language and habits; for their very ways of life, diverse as they were and thrown into turmoil by such dissonance, might have been expected to cause many innovations in the ancient order of the city. For many others by living among barbarians have in a short time forgotten all their Greek heritage, so that they neither speak the Greek language nor observe the customs of the Greeks nor acknowledge the same gods nor have the same equitable laws (by which most of all the spirit of the Greeks differs from that of the barbarians) nor agree with them in anything else whatever that relates to the ordinary intercourse of life. Those Achaeans who are settled near the Euxine sea are a sufficient proof of my contention; for, though originally eleans, of a nation the most Greek of any, they are now the most savage of all barbarians.

The language spoken by the Romans is neither utterly barbarous nor absolutely Greek, but a mixture, as it were, of both, the greater part of which is Aeolic; and the only disadvantage they have experienced from their intermingling with these various nations is that they do not pronounce all their sounds properly. But all other indications of a Greek origin they preserve beyond any other colonists. For it is not merely recently, since they have enjoyed the full tide of good fortune to instruct them in the amenities of life, that they have begun to live humanely; nor is it merely since they first aimed at the conquest of countries lying beyond the sea, after overthrowing the Carthaginian and Macedonian empires, but rather from the time when they first joined in founding the city, that they have lived like Greeks; and they do not attempt anything more illustrious in the pursuit of virtue now than formerly. I have innumerable things to say upon this subject and can adduce many arguments and present the testimony of credible authors; but I reserve all this for the account I purpose to write of their government. I shall now resume the thread of my narrative.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Free Capitalist]

And now for the rest of my post...

I therefore set out to demonstrate that, contrary to your Romanticized version of history, the Roman Republic, for all its greatness, was not a Utopia of Lockean liberalism.

You sound, Alon, as if an unforgivable lie had just been uttered, and you are embarking on a righteous crusade the right the wrongs. Instead of accusing me of having misplaced my allegiance and of having wrong view of history, it looks like you should listen to your own advice.

Yet in reading your account of the Republic one would think it ranks with the political institutions of 18th & 19th century Britain or America.

I said no such thing. But, by your own admission Roman constitution was light years ahead of every other government anywhere else in the world, even Greek, and were it not for Rome there would be no American constitution which merely built on it, nothing more. If you believe I am saying that the Republic is the greatest government ever created, you're attacking a strawman and are strongly mistaken. Many admire Athenian democracy and are inspired by its achievement, but no one claims it was the greatest government ever. I view history in context.

So please attack the arguments that I actually said, not those you imagine I might have said.

If we are to say that “[the Republic was]intensely ethical for most of its existence” or otherwise, then we will have to agree on the dates in which the Republic was astill a thoroughly oligarchic regime and when it became more democratic. And then qualify our statements by specifying which era is in question.

I am talking about the entire era from the last kings, i.e. Tullus and Superbus, 600s BC, down to approximately the Gracchian reforms in the 130s BC, when signs were clear that the fabric of the people went downhill. By asking you to specify examples of Republican corruption and evils before the first century, what I really meant was for you to give examples before this Roman collapse, which may begin to be vaguely traced back to the end of the Second Punic War, but more acutely to around the sack of Carthage in 146BC. This is what I mean by the "first century" - the beginning of the end. It reached the apogee in the 1st century BC, but really started to grow in the latter half of the second century.

The Second Punic War was the last and perhaps greatest example of the old Roman mentality, which to a cynic is a "bedtime story" but to me is a dream. That is a fine difference, but a real one.

I cannot confidently discuss the very early Republic because our only sources for the era are historians who wrote hundreds of years later and could not but lavish praise on it, having a specific interest in returning to the older way of life.

These later historians did not just sit on their bums scratching their foreheads about what fanciful tales to write that day. They had many primary records, such as for example the Fasti, ancient consular records going back to 485BC:

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Fasti.html and http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/encyclopaedia_...r/antiates.html

The triumphal records of the Fasti go back to Romulus in the 8th century:

http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/931_Fasti_C...riumphales.html and http://www.attalus.org/translate/fasti.html

The validity and reliability of the Fasti is discussed and confirmed here:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:DAbgo...man+fasti&hl=en

Records in this form were available to all ancient historians, but this was just the beginning of the historical record, not the end. There abounded during those days a plethora of evidence about even the Regal era, let alone the Republican one: ancient inscriptions, personal records, sculptures, architecture. Much of it was destroyed since then, but a few of it remains to this day, such as the Capitoline Wolf, those Fasti, and others. That body of evidence is growing even now due to excavations, such as the ones you provided a link to about Rome's early kings.

But more important than what we have now is what the historians have written down when it still existed in those days, and the existence of which must be taken unquestionably, because those were public monuments available to all for verification. An imaginary account about existence of such evidence would be just as impossible then as it would be now. For example, no Napoleonic historian today can write a book saying, "I saw this sculpture of Napoleon in Paris, where he himself had ordered inscribed that he won the Battle of Waterloo." Everyone could go and check for themselves whether such statue existed. Similar metaphysical status must be given to all such records, no matter how ancient.

But men like Cicero, Cato, and Brutus were exceptions to the rule.

For most of the Republic, men like Cato were the rule, and you will be hardpressed to find exceptions. Indeed there were exceptions, either sinister in the form of the decemvirs, or even heroically tyrranical in the form of Coriolanus. But the exceptions prove the rule.

Had you read my statement you would have understood I was referring to the typical habit of Roman proconsuls to levy heavy taxes in the provinces.

First of all, proconsuls are not the same thing as consuls. Second of all, until the end of the First Punic War (last quarter of 3rd century BC), Rome never even had a province. It had a loose network of allies who were all conquered by Rome in previous wars, but were not demanded any tribute from, nor were otherwise burdened by any unjust demands that every other empire in history, including Athens, had levied upon those they conquered. The only thing Rome required from her allies were auxiliary troops, to fight alongside her own citizen soldiers in common defense against mutual enemies. Otherwise they were left to their own devices. How evil of Rome, eh?

With the close of the First Punic War the first real provinces appeared - Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia. Even they were treated with utmost respect and justice, as record shows. Hiero, the king of Syracuse (the foremost city in Sicily, for those who don't know), has shown one of the most touching devotions to Rome in all of her history, standing by her when nearly everyone else had abandoned her. That's not how mistreated subjects, who are demeaned and trampled upon, act. That's how proud equals act. What a sinister empire Rome was! Let's join the chorus of condemnation.

It is only after the end of the Second Punic War that Rome seriously got into the province business, adding Africa and beginning colonization of Spain and Northern Greece. Still, despite this, it is only by the second half of the 2nd century BC that you begin to find questionable acts, growing with increasing frequency until Cicero's time, when his own political integrity did become an exception. But all of this only proves the rule that Rome was not always so, and only shows that you cannot come up with any accusation of Rome that is before her downfall. No other empire in history comes even close to this kind of nobility of mind. Even a great city like Athens, when at its military and cultural pinnacle, admitted she held unjust tyranny over most of Aegean, but continued to press on her subjects with an iron fist. Even she could learn something from Rome.

---

Look, I am kind of wasting my time here. I have just realized what a gargantuan post I had written, and could write even more if I didn't stop myself. The point is, the justification and proper scientific arguments for my claims about Rome's lofty history, can be found, and have always existed. That's the thing, they have always existed - not in such giant numbers as what we have left from the Empire, but still existant nonetheless. It's like The Night of January 16th - there's just enough evidence for, and just enough against; it is no longer the defendant who becomes on trial, but the jury itself. When our European civilization was noble, the evidence for Rome was enough to acquit the defendant with honors. We still looked for heroes, and we found them in history, not only in our fiction books; when we wanted to find heroes, as a culture, we did. The evidence is there, one only need to want to find it, and to believe that it exists. I do want to find it, which is why I was so grateful to your post about the archaeological find; I do want to believe it exists. You, on the other hand, in the best scenario don't seem to really care, and at worst do not want to find it.

Because you hang out on an Objectivist Forum, I assumed you're a hero-worshipper too, that you do not cling to cynicism and do desperately desire to find men to admire, just like the rest of us. It looks like I was wrong, and you're more concerned to fit in with the modern historical community than to do what's right for yourself. You probably admire Jared Diamond, and detest Victor Hanson, whereas it is the latter who is so admirable, and the latter so detestable - not as much in the books they write and the arguments they use, but in the intentions they have behind their body of work. Even if you disagree with Diamond, your intentions appear to be are a lot more like his, and a lot less like Hanson's.

That's why I will not try anymore to persuade you, per se. I don't think it can be done. If I will continue arguing with you, and I probably will, it is only for the sake of others out there just starting out, who desperately cling to hope that somewhere at some time there might have lived people worthy of tremendous admiration. Shame on you for trying to take that away from them.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[argive99]

What would an objective moral evaluation of the 3rd Punic War be? I ask because I have difficulty evaluating historical eras different from my own. Would the standard by the highest possible according to Obectivism or the best (ie most rational) for that era? Was the decision to raze Carthage to the ground the correct one or was it needless warmongering? The Hannibalic war seems easier to evalute, but I'm uncertain if the last Punic War was a neccessary pre-emptive attack.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Free Capitalist]

Argive, as I've written in a private reply to you long ago, I don't think there's much ground for condemnation. I grant that some actions of individual consuls were questionable, but given the amount of blood spilled on the Roman side (by some accounts ~200,000 men in the 2nd Punic War alone), the length of the titanic conflict between the two states (~100 years), the worrysome renewed aggressive tendencies of Carthage, I don't view the sack of Carthage as very troubling. Also keep in mind that the "salting the grounds of Carthage to make it sterile" is a modern myth, as no ancient texts mention it, and salt was an exceedingly valuable commodity in the ancient world, hardly as cheap and plentiful as it is for us today. See the modern book, "Salt", which discusses how this substance fueled the ancient economies and caused the rise and fall of empires, making it the opposite of something that you could just throw around, especially over the huge area that the city of Carthage occupied. And plus, the city was resettled by the Romans a century later.

Anyway, perhaps you'd like to raise for discussion individual issues that you find troublesome, and offer your own alternatives to what could be done instead (given the context of warfare in the ancient world, not modern). In other words, when you propose your own alternatives, you'll have to keep in mind Alexander's destruction of Thebes and massacre of Tyre, the old Greek customs of killing off the entire male population of cities they conquered, etc.

[argive99]

Anyway, perhaps you'd like to raise for discussion individual issues that you find troublesome, and offer your own alternatives to what could be done instead (given the context of warfare in the ancient world, not modern). In other words, when you propose your own alternatives, you'll have to keep in mind Alexander's destruction of Thebes and massacre of Tyre, the old Greek customs of killing off the entire male population of cities they conquered, etc.

Actually, this begins to answer my question. You're saying that a full evaluation of the sack of Carthage would have to proceed according to the standards of ancient warfare. I am a great lover of the Roman Republic and would grant them the benefit of the doubt, but I personally do not know enough about the period to really know if the full destruction of the city was warranted or not. I know that they also sacked Corinth in the same year. I had originally thought that this may have been the rough period where the cracks started widening in the Republic and it started its trend of military expansionism, but from what you've written, I'm probably wrong.

As for the salt, I did not know how important it was to the ancient economy. Given that fact, the symbolic throwing of it and "raking" it into the scorched earth was probably untrue. What about the famous line uttered by (I believe) Scipio Amelioranus that (paraphrasing) "once more, Troy burns".

[Free Capitalist]

Looking at the burning Carthage, Scipio Aemilianus did say, that he feared the same fate would one day meet his great city as well.

But yeah, the standards of ancient military warfare were extremely brutal by modern standards. But it was Dr. Peikoff who advocated converting the Middle East into a glass factory via nuclear weapons, so it's not like the ancient standards were immoral simply because of large numbers of casualites. Wars, like everything else, have to be taken in context. Just because our modern effete sensibilities make us squeamish that 1,000 of our soldiers got killed during the last 3 years, doesn't mean it really is something of concern. I mean if you think about those casualty numbers, that is an incredibly low number for any war, but we concern ourselves with it as if hundreds of thousands of American soldiers are dead. Similarly, when Dr. Peikoff announced his advocary of the 'nuclear solution', how many even of the Objectivist persuasion got seriously disturbed by his suggestion? The problem lies in our sensibilities, not in the solutions toward peace that nations may properly assume. Remember that Romans had Carthage on its knees at the end of the 2nd Punic War, and they could sack it then and there, but they left it completely intact. That shows their moderation, compared to other nations' warfare, more than anything else.

Again, I don't condone the particular actions of the various consuls during the 3rd Punic War, some of them were quite facetious in how they treated Carthage. But that's not where the source of the condemnation should lie.

[argive99]

Looking at the burning Carthage, Scipio Aemilianus did say, that he feared the same fate would one day meet his great city as well.

But yeah, the standards of ancient military warfare were extremely brutal by modern standards. But it was Dr. Peikoff who advocated converting the Middle East into a glass factory via nuclear weapons, so it's not like the ancient standards were immoral simply because of large numbers of casualites. Wars, like everything else, have to be taken in context. Just because our modern effete sensibilities make us squeamish that 1,000 of our soldiers got killed during the last 3 years, doesn't mean it really is something of concern. I mean if you think about those casualty numbers, that is an incredibly low number for any war, but we concern ourselves with it as if hundreds of thousands of American soldiers are dead. Similarly, when Dr. Peikoff announced his advocary of the 'nuclear solution', how many even of the Objectivist persuasion got seriously disturbed by his suggestion? The problem lies in our sensibilities, not in the solutions toward peace that nations may properly assume. Remember that Romans had Carthage on its knees at the end of the 2nd Punic War, and they could sack it then and there, but they left it completely intact. That shows their moderation, compared to other nations' warfare, more than anything else.

Again, I don't condone the particular actions of the various consuls during the 3rd Punic War, some of them were quite facetious in how they treated Carthage. But that's not where the source of the condemnation should lie.

Actually, you got right to my main motivation for asking. It was sparked by the constant cries I hear that America is "oppressive" or "imperial" or "brutal" or "like Rome"!! Don't get me confused with a Libertarian. I agreed with Dr. Peikoff (as well as Yaron Brook) when he gave his nuclear solution. I was trying to understand for myself when, if ever, Republican Rome engaged in non-defensive "wars of agression", because in my reading of current authors, I see a commonality between those that paint Rome (including Republican Rome) as a war-mongering nation with those that do the same with America.

And wouldn't you know it, most are of the libertarian persuasion. Go figure.

Edited April 4, 2005 by argive99