4 ms·

> inability (unwillingness?) to compromise. I think the basic story of the late Republic is one of a political-economy which needed to change but which could n

> inability (unwillingness?) to compromise. I think the basic story of the late Republic is one of a political-economy which needed to change but which could not. Romes successes had rewritten the fundamental realities of its means and relations of production but the political system gave an effective veto power to people who refused to see this and instead wished to blame cultural changes and a decline in traditional virtue for the troubles. This delusion was a borderline mental illness. These people loved Rome's martial history and wanted to keep armies in the field as much as anyone, yet opposed opening the cavalry to non-yeomen despite the deleterious impacts it had on the rural upper class and the decreasing ability of the Romans to field these kind of patriotic cavalry. These people benefited in multitude ways from the influx of slave labor. But they resisted any effort to enfranchise now underemployed Romans, settling instead to doll them grain. Even as this destroyed the These people leveraged their neighbor Italians to win profitable war after profitable war and resisted giving them the privileges of citizenship until forced at the point of a spear. And all the while, any type of reform which had the aesthetic of appearing against traditional Roman virtue was resisted entirely by the traditional aristocrats. Until of course Marius, many of whose reforms were so practical that not even a nostalgia trip like Sulla could bring himself to turn them all back. I think the moral of the fall of Rome is not about a lack of compromise but about what happens when your political system ceases to be able to address the fundamental issues that are undermining it. The end of the Poland-Lithuania is another such example.

thom 4y ago
The Marian reforms were very practical, but they also set the scene for later generations of armies that felt bound more to their general than to Rome itself. There's a reason Augustus nearly bankrupted the state professionalizing the army. But I broadly agree with your point - the tensions that brought the Republic down had been festering for hundreds of years.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  > But I broadly agree with your point - the tensions that brought the Republic down had been festering for hundreds of years. That's true but not my specific point. My specific point is that the above comment is extolling a milk-toast "both sides" view of the breakdown of the Roman Republic that simply isn't supported by fact. The problems facing Rome were plainly due to changes in geo-poltical and economic circumstances. Many of these changes in circumstances were themselves created by action of the basic structures of Roman society and the successes they had achieved. All resistance to addressing those changes in any manner, big or small, can be laid at the feet of an out of touch group of traditional aristocrats who would not abide Rome in any form besides the mythological form they believe it had in the early Republic. These people essentially held a veto to any "legitimate" challenge and used violence in successive circumstances where they feared an "illegitimate" challenge.
  - thom 4y ago
    Totally agree that there wasn't much for the plebs to compromise on and I hope I'm not both-sidesing here, just pointing out that the tradition of violence around any proposed land reforms goes back hundreds of years, indeed all the way to the very first proposed agrarian laws of 486BC. The patrician class was conservative and backward-looking by its very nature, and the Roman form of government was almost _explicitly_ created to reach stalemate rather than solve problems in one side's favour (tribunes had the veto too, except as you point out for a few years under Sulla). Obviously in practice that meant the oligarchy had the better part of the deal. But that wasn't necessarily a _new_ tension. So what changed that these old grievances ended up shattering the Republic?
  - rnk 4y ago
    When you say "traditional aristocrats who would not abide Rome in any form besides the mythological form they believe it had in the early Republic" that sure sounds like the us senate to me. As I see it, the senate still has few q-anon completely irrational people who want to destroy everything. The senate doesn't see that we are actually imperiled by another presidency that wants to continue to destroy our institutions. They don't seem to the see the danger. Thus we get our supreme court making decisions justified by writing from before 1776.

thom 4y ago

The Marian reforms were very practical, but they also set the scene for later generations of armies that felt bound more to their general than to Rome itself. There's a reason Augustus nearly bankrupted the state professionalizing the army. But I broadly agree with your point - the tensions that brought the Republic down had been festering for hundreds of years.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
> But I broadly agree with your point - the tensions that brought the Republic down had been festering for hundreds of years. That's true but not my specific point. My specific point is that the above comment is extolling a milk-toast "both sides" view of the breakdown of the Roman Republic that simply isn't supported by fact. The problems facing Rome were plainly due to changes in geo-poltical and economic circumstances. Many of these changes in circumstances were themselves created by action of the basic structures of Roman society and the successes they had achieved. All resistance to addressing those changes in any manner, big or small, can be laid at the feet of an out of touch group of traditional aristocrats who would not abide Rome in any form besides the mythological form they believe it had in the early Republic. These people essentially held a veto to any "legitimate" challenge and used violence in successive circumstances where they feared an "illegitimate" challenge.
- thom 4y ago
  Totally agree that there wasn't much for the plebs to compromise on and I hope I'm not both-sidesing here, just pointing out that the tradition of violence around any proposed land reforms goes back hundreds of years, indeed all the way to the very first proposed agrarian laws of 486BC. The patrician class was conservative and backward-looking by its very nature, and the Roman form of government was almost _explicitly_ created to reach stalemate rather than solve problems in one side's favour (tribunes had the veto too, except as you point out for a few years under Sulla). Obviously in practice that meant the oligarchy had the better part of the deal. But that wasn't necessarily a _new_ tension. So what changed that these old grievances ended up shattering the Republic?
- rnk 4y ago
  When you say "traditional aristocrats who would not abide Rome in any form besides the mythological form they believe it had in the early Republic" that sure sounds like the us senate to me. As I see it, the senate still has few q-anon completely irrational people who want to destroy everything. The senate doesn't see that we are actually imperiled by another presidency that wants to continue to destroy our institutions. They don't seem to the see the danger. Thus we get our supreme court making decisions justified by writing from before 1776.