Reading about the Romans, I am struck by how like and unlike us they were:
civilized, urbane and literate;
participating in complicated political processes, including elections;
owning slaves and disrespecting even freedmen;
very close to physical violence - civil war seems to have been a routine political process!;
worshipping a literal, not a metaphorical, pantheon...
(We appreciate Jupiter in epic poetry but do not expect him to strike us with lightning.)
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Alas, so much of what the Romans wrote were lost, as was probably inevitable in eras when books had to be copied by hand.
Many Romans disdained freedmen but manumitted ex-slaves still became Roman citizens with only a few minor legal restrictions, and their children were full citizens. With some of their grandchildren rising to the Senate. Rome was far more generous with its citizenship than the Greeks.
The problem, as Stirling and I have commented, is that while Rome had become a monarchy it lacked the necessary laws and traditions such a regime needs for long-lasting stability. Making civil wars a real danger, as during the year of the four Emperors (AD 68-69). Above all during the agonies of the Third Century Crisis, when the Empire nearly went under.
I doubt many educated, upper class took the Olympians very seriously by the reign of Augustus. A Roman dismissed those glorified Thracian hill bandits as "those children" in Anderson's THE GOLDEN SLAVE.
Ad astra! Sean
Rome during its first two centuries as an empire did rather well -- civil wars were brief, and not too destructive, and it culminated in the "5 good emperors".
The problem was that Rome didn't have science or economic innovation, so it ran into a wall during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
It had realized all the increased production it could realize from letting best-practice spread and from securing a large area under peace and law.
Apparently, Augustus did not become "Emperor" as we understand it on any particular occasion. Instead, he acquired various positions of political power in perpetuity and then accepted the title of Imperator, a term which already meant "commander."
Having read more: he is regarded as "Emperor" from when he accepted the name, "Augustus," in 27 BC, not from when he took the title, "Imperator," in 38 BC. This is complicated and confusing.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree, the era from the triumph of Octavian at Actium in 31 BC to the assassination of Commodus in AD 192 was basically as you described. I also agree that limitations imposed by what was economically and technologically possible, given what was then known, drove the Empire to hitting that wall by Marcus Aurelius' reign.
But it's still possible that if the defects of the Principate that we both commented on had been avoided/corrected, the Empire might have enjoyed peace and prosperity much longer.
Paul: Augustus seemed confusing because he was being deliberately ambiguous. His grand uncle and adoptive father Julius Caesar came to a violent end because he grasped too eagerly and openly at power, including the symbols of power, angering the Senatorial aristocracy. Augustus masked his actual rule of Rome with soothing talk of restoring the Republic, acquiring various offices and positions of power and prestige. And because Augustus had a long life the Principate he set up had become so firmly rooted that Tiberius was able to succeed him as Imperator Caesar Augustus and Pontifex Maximus.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: that was Octavian's political genius in operation -- he didn't alienate people the way Caesar had done, though the situation was different because of the civil wars that had followed Caesar's assassination. He let people pretend he'd "restored the Republic".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, albeit there were civil wars before Julius Caesar, starting with the struggles between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, showing that the Republic was breaking down.
Ambiguity can be carried too far. Since Rome had become a monarchy, it would have been good if Augustus had given some thought for the Principate gaining some of the laws, customs, institutions needed by stable monarchies. But that might be asking too much of any one man!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Romans of Octavian's era were violently prejudiced against monarchy. Particularly upper-class Romans, and Octavian needed them. They were willing to put up with the reality of a monarchy, but not the -appearance- of one.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, I agree. Octavian was wise, accommodating himself to the prejudices of the Senatorial aristocracy. I think, by the time Marcus Aurelius became Emperor in AD 161, these anti-monarchical prejudices were softening. If his son Commodus had not been such a dolt, it's possible the de facto monarchy Rome had become would have evolved some of the laws/traditions needed by a stable monarchy. That's how I interpret what Artorius was trying to cautiously encourage in your Antonine books.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment