The Roman History Essay Example for Free

The Roman History Essay The history of Rome first century of Roman Empire is the time of toughening of emperor regime and strengthening of its authoritarian character. The indicated process, the most vivid external illustration was practice of political repressions, was stipulated by personal qualities of regents, and the very essence of principate regime. The scale and character of emperor terror in the 1st century is subject of discussions in the modern historiography, but doesn’t matter which point of view we have, it will not be a mistake to tell that its influence for Roman society was very great. The transformation from Republic to Empire event of revolution meaning for Roman history – wasn’t the same important for August’s contemporaries. Those advantages, which were the result of principate – civil peace, personal safety, economic goods – seemed to overshadow the new political changes (The End of the Roman Empire by Donald Kagan, p. 85). It took several dozens of years of Pax Augusti, where the political stability, which became a usual thing, partially lost status of absolute value for the Romans. The necessity to preserve Caesars power in the name of total safety was not so obvious for generation which grew during August government. Those who survived Tiberius repressions, madness of Caligula, petty tyranny of Neuron understood that the governmental regime of Rome experienced changes during August government and the very time of it starts to be understood as historical edge, which separate Senate republic and Roman people (Senatus Populusque Romanum) from Caesars Empire (The End of the Roman Empire by Donald Kagan, p. 92). This terror delivered a strong blow to old aristocracy: there were a lot of representatives of noble families: Aurelius, Domicius, Calpurnius, Emiluius, Scribonius, Eluis, etc. Still, even if not the terror, the old Nobiles early or later would disappear from the scene, giving place to new social forces. A new generation managed to grew in conditions of terrorist regime of Julius-Claudius, generation which will manage to determine the face of Empire. Let’s realize the meaning of â€Å"Nobiles†. The word â€Å"Nobiles† (Latin ‘nobilitas’) means noble, the best. The estate of Nobiles appeared during the war of patricians with plebs. Thanks to reforms of Servius Tuliy, in accordance with which the position of citizen was determined exclusively by property qualification, but not by belonging to some class, plebs became Roman citizens and the top of this class became nobility. Importance of Tulius constitution was also in fact that it was an important stage in development of new elite class of aristocracy – Nobiles. Common interests of land and slaves proprietors help consolidation of power class. Rich plebs and patricians are making one new class – Nobiles. So we can make important conclusion: if during the epoch of kings Senate stayed, by essence, patricians, so it becomes patrician-plebs during the Republic. Some patrician clans loose their importance and gradually disappeared. Some plebs clans, on the contrary, gained importance. Another fact is that Senate aristocracy consisted not only of plebs and patricians but also so-called â€Å"new people† (hominess novi). They were not a part Senate aristocracy and were able to gain some high positions only as exceptions. Economic basis of Nobiles-magnates was huge land-owning: Nobiles took the best lands; former lands of rulers became latifundias. Together with Italian patrimonies the rich gained big patrimonies in provinces as well. Frequent military campaigns to the other countries make rich military commanders from Senate class. They received big sums of money from provinces, the finances of Nobiles from wars and robberies of provinces were the basis for land development (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, chapter 5). Classical slave-owning were developed. The historians think that Senate oligarchy had several political means of influence the country such as: Consulate power; Appointing of dictators; Split in the environment of national tribunes; Opposition to decisions of plebs national meetings; Religion as strong support of aristocracy. Former simplicity changed by luxuriance. The next stage of struggle with regime of Senate oligarchy in the history of Republic became Caesars dictatorship. In 44 AD senate has given him a title of lifelong, eternal dictator (dictator in perpetuum), he has received also a title father of fatherland (parens patriae), a title of emperor which became part of his name, specifying connection with his army; and has been elected great pontific. Caesar has shown himself everywhere in purple clothes of triumphal accompanied by 72 leactors. Despite of dictatorship regime, traditional republican institutes were saved: a post of consul, national assembly which obeyed the orders of Caesar. The senate reorganized by dictator and consisting now of 900 person mainly his officers and even former libertines was the same. Caesar became the lifelong monarch. Bended before destiny and power of this person, writes Ploutarch, and allowed to put a bridle on them, Romans considered that individual power is rest from civil wars and other misfortunes. They have chosen him lifelong dictator. This irremovability in connection with unlimited autocracy was public tyranny (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, ch. 5). 40-ies AD were marked by violent struggle against senatorial oligarchy and formation of Second triumvirate (43 AD) for this struggle. Mark Antony, Lepide and Octavian became the triumvirers, which have received from the senate the extraordinary powers for the establishment of state (tresviri reipublicae constituendae), but in fact all these was made for struggle against republicans. Triumviri first of all acted as enemies of senatorial oligarchy, the main aim of them was destruction of old aristocracy. By Sulla’s example, they made lists of political opponents (proscription). Those repressions by quantity of victims and cruelty were much crueler then those of Sulla: they killed more then 300 senators and 2 thousand of horsemen. Cyceron was the head of opposition in Senate against triumvirs and particularly, against consul – a friend of Caesar, by whose offer Antonio was declared the enemy of fatherland. Cyceron made 14 speeches against him, accusing Antonio that he leads amoral way of life, drunkenness and debauchery; called him scoundrel, impudent, fool, coward, etc. Cyceron, the prominent Roman speaker, philosopher and political leader, was killed for his speeches. The killers brought his head to Antonio, who was finally satisfied (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, ch. 6). The Caesarians won a victory over Republicans and established an Emperor regime in January 13, year 27 – Principate – the early form of Empire with August at the head. His full name was as follows: Imperator Caesar Augustus, Divi Filius. Still, we can admit that Augustus really became the first dictator in world history to call for a nationwide plebiscite. Political system of Principate formally was based on traditional republican magistrates – the reason of it was that Senate gave to August extremely powers in order to renovate former Republic (N. Lewis M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I: The Republic and the Augustan Age, p. 260). But in fact all of them were now united in August’s hands, what contradicted the Republican constitution. Still, legally Senate (600 persons) was considered to be supreme governmental structure with court and legislative     functions, but it also became an obedient weapon in emperor’s hands, because Senate confirmed all propositions of his emperor. So, Seneca was right, when he exclaimed: â€Å"The Governor hided in the republican clothes!† When I studied the history of Ancient Rome, the book I liked was the book of R. Syme â€Å"Roman revolution† (1939). A.J.P. Taylor wrote that the book is a work of brilliant scholarship which can be enjoyed by the expert and the layman alike. Another estimation of Ronald Syme’s work was made by Sir Maurice Bowra who said that â€Å"his work is extraordinarily persuasive and interesting; it is the best book on Roman History that has appeared for many years†. The idea of this book is to examine transformation of Rome from Roman Republic to Empire like some kind of revolution, the main force of which was new Roman Army – armed proletariat. This book is a bright example of usage new prosophographic method of those times. This method was born in the West from the beginning of XX century. In contrast to Mommsen’s scheme, which supposed the existence of some ideological pivot in the outline of events, which determined activity of political groups, this method makes the main accent on egoistic essence of human being – subject of politics. The central theme of researches becomes not the struggle of ideas or the struggle of ideologies, but the rivalry of personal ambitions. So, this is the reason that representatives of prosophographic method have as direction of â€Å"party† war the war of family and clan groups. The scientists consider Geltzer, Muntzer and Syme to be the founders of this method. The first monograph of M. Geltzer is published in 1912 under the name â€Å"Nobiles of Roman Republic†, where the author suggests original conception, in accordance with which the Roman Nobiles consisted of Senator class and horsemen. But still, the main merit of this researcher is that he paid special attention to relative, friendly, client and other personal relations, with ‘fides’ in its basis. Developing his ideas, Geltzer criticized the conception, which was quite popular thanks to Mommzen, the idea of which was â€Å"two-party† character of political life in Rome. Ronald Syme considers that political struggle in Rome was determined not by struggle of the parties or political programs, but disputes of noble families, with admirers, which made a kind of group among the noble families, connected with them by extremely personal relations (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, ch. 6). Ronald Syme wrote other prominent words which are worthwhile to cite here: The nobiles by their ambition and their feuds, had not merely destroyed their spurious republic: they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty; and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property: it could not be guaranteed by the constitution of Republican Rome. Worn and broken by civil war and disorder, The Roman people was ready to surrender the ruinous privilege of freedom and submit to strict government as the beginning of time.So order came to Rome. Acriora ex eo vincula, as Tacitus observes. Ronald Syme considers Caesar not the revolutionary, but rather an opportunist and realist because his actions and deeds, which was more conservative and much more Roman citizen, then some can him consider to be (R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, p.312); he determines Octavian as a real revolutionary leader. The most interesting, still, are conclusions made by Syme about Caesars dictatorship, his personality and character of power. Ronald Syme doesn’t see the necessity to suppose that Caesar had desire to create ellinistic monarchy. His political aims were determined by desire to liquidate consequences of civil war. He understood, of course, that government of Nobiles became anachronism in the world orb, as well as the government of Roman plebs from the moment when all Italics were able to take part in vote (Gabba, E. ‘True history and false history in classical antiquity’, Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981) 50-62). But even in this position Caesar could be satisfied by dictatorship as it was; his autocratic position was forced to the great extent. In such a way Ronald Syme in his work â€Å"The Roman Revolution† gave very careful and reserved estimation or Caesar. Caesar wasn’t appraised the title of â€Å"revolutionary† even, although Syme examines the civil war after the Caesar’s death like a further intensification of revolution, and â€Å"the successor of Caesar, Octavian, is estimated as revolutionary leader. The arguments Syme uses, are often seem to be ineluctable. This conception influenced considerably the ideas and works of different scientists regarding transformation of Rome from Roman Republic to Empire. Ronald Syme writes the following about the Caesar: The rule of the nobiles, he [Caesar] could see, was an anachronism in a world-empire; and so was the power of the Roam plebs when all Italy enjoyed the franchise. Caesar in truth was more conservative and Roman that many have fancied; no Roman conceived of government save through an oligarchy. The researchers who tried to investigate the nature of problem of principate try to imagine this transformation not like simple change of political forms, but like a part of more wide social-political revolution. We mean, first of all, the theory of â€Å"Roman revolution†, which is expressed with full strength in the Syme’s work. The essence of changes, which took place in Roman government at the edge of old and new era, by opinion of English researcher, was that oligarchy of Roman Nobiles changed by other, consisted of different groups of Italian people. The principate appeared as a result of compromise between revolutionary leader, Octavian and Republican aristocracy, which lost its monopoly for power during the Civil Wars of I century before our century. This compromise, stipulated by Constitutional Agreement of AD 23, became the basis of political position of August, which was determined, besides the extremely powers, given to him by Senate and people, by the special influence of his personality (anctoritas Augusti), which had great power (Alfoldy, G. Two Principes: Augustus and Sir Ronald Syme, p.101-105). To call this system, created by August, the monarchy or not to call – by opinion of R. Syme is the matter of taste. It is important, that in fact this power was absolute, and there is no doubts and other opinions. The Republicanism of the Empire founder can be considered the fiction of historians of XIX-XX centuries: Tacit and Gybbon understood the real matter of facts more clearly then majority of the modern researchers, considers Syme (Alfoldy, G. Two Principes: Augustus and Sir Ronald Syme, p.112). Still, some historians don’t agree with Ronald Syme, who declares that the decisive role in the subsequent constitutional transformation played people who were very close to August: Vipsany Agrippa and Lyvia. Ronald Syme is sure that the relations of direct subordination between principles and proconsuls of Senate provinces are regulated only starting from the year 23. His point of view, as far as I think, is without any doubt, quite close to truth: it is not accidentally almost immediately after â€Å"regulation† of year 23 August undertakes long inspection trip at his Eastern lands. It goes without saying that Ronald Syme also divides great attention to problem of organization of public opinion in his work â€Å"The Roman Revolution† (R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, pp. 459-475). We are fully agree with conclusion of English historian, that laudation addressed to principal by Virgily, Goratio and other prominent poets of those days, cannot be considered only as usual court flattery. The poets of August government are natives of Italy. The opinions of Italian people are reflected in their creativity like in the mirror. (R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, p. 333). I think, particularly, that this work of Ronald Syme can be called one of the most important books on history of Rome. The book is written in amazing style and actually, I really think that it can change the life of person who’ll read it carefully and attentively. Let’s have a look nor for Roman problem with Suetonius’ eyes. When he published one of the most famous books â€Å"The Twelve Caesars†, Roman Empire already existed for more them 1,5 centuries. 150 years before the ancestor of dictator Caesar, Octavian became the only governor of huge Roman government. Civil wars, which took place for more then 20 years, were finished and the epoch of Roman republic finished as well. The fall of Republic was caused by a number of economic, social and political reasons. As result of long-lasting wars which lasted for more then three centuries, Rome, which once was an unpretentious city-government, subordinated almost the whole Mediterranean area. Rome managed to subordinate nations with very different level of social and cultural development: Greece, which already overcame its power, Asia, Syria, Egypt, where forms of property and exploitation, which were popular at the times of Ancient East, were combined with developed slave-owner relations. Northern Africa, Gallya, Spain, divided into plenty of regions and tribes, part of which already knew developed slavery, trade, city life, and part of which still lived in other conditions or was subordinated to kin aristocracy (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.12). So, explanation of events needs examination of facts in their connection and cooperation, where good and bad events are the reasons of the same motives. This is the way Plutarch and Tacit do, although for one of them this connection is spread for the whole Roman history, and for the other one is limited by life of one person. Estimation of events, still, needs maximum possible isolation of the fact: only in this position we’ll be able to compare it and estimate if it is good or not. This is the way Suetonius acts. He gives in his work a chain of biographies instead of consequence of events, and he proposes to the reader in each biography plenty of facts (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.13). His emperors seems to pass some kind of exam for a good governor for people who read his works, and he takes into account not the motives of their actions, but the only actions and their results. Tacit wanted to scare the reader, showing him the fatal inevitability of degeneration of the Emperor Rome; Plutarch wanted to console the reader, giving him moral examples, which they should obey and which they should avoid. Both of them wanted to touch the heart of their heroes and to find out some properties which are common for past, present and future. The history continues to live in modern time for them. Tacit feels that cruelties of former emperors can be renewed in any new governor, Plutarch knows that merits and demerits of ancient governors are still alive and will remain the example and the kind of lesson for all the times.   Suetonius doesn’t know these feelings (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.15). The contemporaneity for him already solved all questions which were accusing the past, the truth was reached and the former mistakes will never happen again: these were particulars, accidental details, which cannot be considered as common facts. So, having a look at them, he notices only the external side of events, he tries to find the features which are individual, different, unusual and bright; the peculiarity in small details is much more interesting for him, then similarity in common. To tel with other words, he aspires to interesting facts, but not to edifying ones. This is the task and this is the approach: estimation instead of explanation, a number of facts instead of chain of events, interesting facts instead of edifying. This approach determines all character of Suetonius’ biographies and in choice and place of the facts. The author is concentrated at the personality of emperor all the time. This is not the history of Empire, but a history of emperors. Suetonius doesn’t depict historical background: at best he reminds about it, supposing that all considerable events are familiar to the reader. Everything that takes place at the huge area of Empire seems to enter Suetonius’s work only by weak echo (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.16).   Events in provinces seem even don’t existing for him. Speaking about the Empire expansion he says only in few words:† so and so areas are turned into provinces†, or in better case he determines their location. (The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Classics) by Suetonius, Yul. 25, Tib. 16). So, the city of Rome and Emperor’s court are the focus of author’s attention.   Suetonius enumerates emperor’s building and spectacles, laws and addicts, shows relation of the governor to Senate, horsemen and nation, special attention he divides to organization of court and legal activity of the emperor. People who influence emperor and governmental affairs are in the shadow: for example, Agrippa and Mecenat are noted briefly in Augustus’ biography; in Tiberius’ biography only Sean was mentioned, and Macron wasn’t noted at all; there is no place for Seneca in Nero’s biography as well as for Nimphidius Sabin at biography of Galba; only while describing biography of Claudius, he enumerates his advisors- libertines, which considered the emperor their toy. But at the same time the figure of emperor, overshadowing all the other, is described with full details: here, in description of person, embodying the whole Roman Empire, there are no inessential details. He carefully collects facts regarding his health, character, habits, interests, way of life; personal life of the emperor seems to be integral part of his governmental activity, it opens to the reader the inclinations of governor in a simple person and allows to foreseen the features of politics with the help of character features. Besides, details of personal life of emperor, of course, allowed adding the interest to Suetonius work, which was of such great importance to the author and the readers. Suetonius writes more details about love adventures of Caesar then about conquest of Gally; he collects anecdotes of Vespassian and at the same time he doesn’t write anything about the famous resolution regarding division of power between Senate and Vespassian (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.17). The biographical scheme consists of four parts: life of emperor before he came to power, governmental activity, personal life, death and funeral. The first and last parts author use chronological scheme of events, if necessary, but the middle parts (which are dedicated to power of emperor) are completely built by logical scheme, with columns, headings and rubrics. Neque per tempora, sed per species – this is the main principle of Suetonius writing. Suetonius wasn’t an independent political philosopher. But still, his biographies are of great interest as a document of epoch, when the theory of monarchy was formed. In their details, they give full program, which should follow the leader, in case he wanted to be approved by ruling classes. Some features were the result of specific conditions; some seemed to be actual and real. This is the reason of interest to his work during the middle ages and nowadays, and thanks to this condition his work is quite popular and interesting even for modern reader. But, let’s come back to the Roman history. Variety of philosophic conceptions at the end of II and I century BC was only one demonstration of complete dissidence of nationality, which was monolithic before; this  Ã‚   dissidence took place in all spheres of culture, and first of all in interpretation of the most actual problems of Roman history for modern political struggle. In such a way, for Sallustius, the active supporter of Caesar, opponent of Senate party, Roman past was an example. But now the government fell into decay and seemed to die inevitably if some changes will not happen. The cause of decay is terrible spoiling of temper, which touched plebs as well, but the main damage caused to Nobile. So, what are the reasons of doom of the Nobiles? To tell the truth, the reason is always the same. â€Å"Often I think over the facts, writes Sallustiy,- in which way the great people achieve success and glory, how the nation raises with the help of prominent governors, which circumstances are the reasons of fall for huge countries and always I have the only one reason for all these: the same merits or the same demerits are the reason of these opposite events: all people who became winners despised the wealth, and all beaten ardently pressed toward them†. So to reach true greatness for a separate person and a government in common, is possible only by one way: to despise the wealth and physical enjoyments, to exercise in â€Å"work, patience, good events and brave actions† – it means, by way of moral perfection. These short formulas are the beginning of Sallustius’ theory of moral collapse. Nobile became corruptible, dissolute, self-interested and always been the enemy of common people, who struggled for freedom during the time of war between patricians and plebs. Some of the main reasons of doom of the Nobile can be called also two passions, two demerits, which are developed in the Roman society: desire for power, ambitions (ambitio) and desire for money, self-interest (avaritia). â€Å"Ambition made people to become liars; to have one in mind and to tell the other in words, to estimate friendly and enemy relations not by essence, but by benefit and to bemore interested in attractive appearance then in inner content† (Sallustius). The second demerit is even more dangerous for society, â€Å"because self-interest radically undermines faithfulness, honesty and other positive qualities in human being, and puts in the forefront cruelty and arrogance, it teaches people to treat the Gods without any regard and to count that you can buy everything†. Roman society once and for all was stucked in demerits and crimes. Only wealth is praised, virtue is downtrodden, poverty is the synonym of shame, and honesty seems to be almost unreliable. The youth couldn’t resist to all these and under influence of greed and luxuriance turned from one side to robberies, and from the other – to mad expenditures, forgot about shame and modesty and didn’t want to obey the laws- neither human, nor God. Rome was great until plebs and their representatives (national tribunes) remained free and strong – government became stronger thanks to its victories. The power of people and fear of strong external enemies held the Nobile in leash, but when Carthage was destroyed, this limiting beginning disappeared. The craving for power and wealth started to be shown more and more openly. Aristocracy in their aspiration for wealth ruined and corrupted by tips the nation which lost the freedom they won before. And still, there is only one factor which is still able to save Rome – nation. The task is to return freedom and power, usurped by the Nobile (P. A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic, p.65-72). Nation should realize their power, to remember that all decisions of consuls and Senate have meaning until the nation obeys them, and to act in the same manner – actively like plebses were struggling with patricians. Works Cited: Alfoldy, G. Two Principes: Augustus and Sir Ronald Syme, Athenaeum 81[71].1 (1993) Syme, The Roman Revolution (1939) The End of the Roman Empire by Donald Kagan Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1 (chap. 5-6) A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic (1988) Lewis M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I: The Republic and the Augustan Age (3 ed. Columbia University Press, 1990) The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Classics) by Suetonius, Penguin Books; Reprint edition (August 1, 1991) JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius (July, 1998) Gabba, E. ‘True history and false history in classical antiquity’, Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981)