Untitled

[decimusingenvinus]

Rome’s adaptation of Greek culture into their own is not a novel idea. The Roman pantheon, schools of philosophy, and literature are all derived from Greek religion, philosophers, and authors. Greece was a hot spot for cultural growth, especially in these aforementioned subjects. Rome consistently looked down on the Greeks despite assuming so many aspects of their culture as Rome’s. But I’d rather discuss how the two differ in terms of the qualities they value and the effects their civilization left on the world today.

Rome emphasized the state and military over all. In this pursuit the qualities that made someone successful in political life or commanding an army were valued over all. This is why most of the figures we discuss from Roman history are military commanders and consuls. Romans exemplified figures like Cinncinatus and Camillus, heroes of the early Republic, were idolized for their skill in battle and absolute devotion to the Republic. Rome is known for its effective government and military as a result of these ideals prevalent in their society. Rome had authors and philosophers but they aren’t nearly as well known as their Greek counterparts. Rome had Vergil’s Aeneid to match Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, albeit the former was heavily based off of the latter.

Greece is known for its rich culture and intellectual development. Some of the best-known Greek figures are philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. This is why we see Greek’s lasting footprint on society is the philosophical ideas they have left behind. Of course Greece has their own military exploits with the most well-known stories coming from the Trojan War. It is interesting that the Greeks defeated the Trojans, who the Romans credit as their ancestors.

“Conquered Greece in turn defeated its savage conqueror” is a saying that is thrown around in reference to Greek culture’s prominence in Roman society and its lasting contribution to Roman philosophy, religion, and literature. We can see this influence in our study of Rome and its propagation of Greek culture.

[decimusingenvinus]

Parallels Between the Two Triumvirates

The stories of Julius and Octavian Caesar’s ascents to power draw many parallels between the two men. Both began ruling as part of a trio or a triumvirate. Caesar’s was an unofficial pact between himself, Pompey, and Crassus to further their own objectives within Rome. Though unofficial, the three held almost complete control over Rome as the governors of Gaul, Hispania, and Syria, all of which covered most of Rome’s territory. This alliance eventually broke down with the death of Caesar’s daughter and Pompey’s wife, Julia, and the death of Crassus in Parthia. Not long after this civil war erupted between Caesar and Pompey that ended with Caesar’s victory and total control over Rome.

After Caesar’s death we see the rise of Marcus Antonius as a consul, Octavian’s adoption by Caesar, and Lepidus being elected Pontifex Maximus. The three contended for the power that Caesar held, but eventually came to an agreement in the form of the Second Triumvirate. This, as opposed to Caesar’s, was an official supraconsular office held by the three that gave them complete control of Rome. Like the first we see geographical lines drawn between the triumvirs, most notably with Octavian in the West and Antonius in the East.

The Second Triumvirate was as loosely bound as the first, Octavian seized Lepidus’ share as soon as he could, saying that Lepidus sought to seize absolute power. This is what ended the Second Triumvirate, and similar to the first, its remaining triumvirs began a civil war with Octavian in the west and Antony in the East. Octavian’s victory over Antony is what cemented his hegemony over Rome, beginning the Empire.

Both triumvirates led to the consolidation of power in a small number of people, effectively circumventing the republic. This allowed for single individuals to seize power and turn the republic into the autocracy we associate with the Empire.

[decimusingenvinus]

The Roman Point of View

It’s very difficult to separate ourselves from our own preconceptions and values when studying history. When we discuss Roman history we discuss the violence they employed to consolidate and maintain their power, the internal politics that eventually brought it to ruin, and the disparity between the upper and lower classes. We how people felt and the actions they took because of this but we don’t often put ourselves in their shoes, and really think about how the events we discuss looked like in their eyes.

Imagine the patricians’ view of Julius Caesar. Deified by the people of Rome for his generosity and clemency, Caesar was popular with the masses but a usurper of the Republic in the eyes of those governing. He marched on Rome for being asked to step down from command, it seems like an overreaction that steered the history of the world where it is today. Albeit the Republic was a long-gone ideal that had been warped by internal politics and civil wars, the most definite end of the Republic was with Caesar’s dictatorship.

Rome’s conquest of Europe was most likely seen as less of a war, and more of an effort to civilize the barbarians as they saw fit. The tribes of Gaul, Britain, and Germany were certainly less organized and less advanced than the Roman legions, and the Romans most likely saw their triumph over the “barbarians” as a birthright in an ancient form of Social Darwinism. Some wars they justified as the gods’ will with interpretations of omens. Omens are emphasized in ancient historians’ retelling of Roman events most likely because these omens also held sway in Roman life. How could they feel guilty for massacring entire peoples if the gods’ ordained it, who were they to defy the gods’ wishes?

The previously mentioned Social Darwinistic attitude pervaded Roman society, even with internal conflicts. The Romans emphasized one’s family and assigned expectations upon individuals based on their ancestors. Plebeians were not expected to do much because of this and this is likely a contributing factor to the Conflict of the Orders and the resistance against plebeian representation in the Republic.

It’s very easy to look back on Roman history and assign good/bad or right/wrong but it was not so clear cut in their time. Many thought they were acting within the moral good while they killed off ancient civilizations that opposed their rule. Today we have the benefits of retrospect and as they say: “hindsight is 20/20.”

[decimusingenvinus]

Julius Caesar’s rise to dictatorship in Rome is one riddled with conflict and hardship. There are generally two views on his total takeover of the Roman Republic. Supporters claim his rule was necessary to reset Rome, allowing it to better rule its empire and end the political conflict that warped the Late Republic into a collection of civil wars. Dissidents call Caesar despotic, stating that his military takeover of the Republic is what led to its ultimate demise and devolution into a tyranny by its emporers.

Caesar’s consolidation of power into a single individual in the government is what made Octavian’s ascension to emporer possible. In the Late Republic, Rome found itself in control of the entire Mediterranean, but was still using the same system of government that it had as a small city state. While the Republic was comprehensive and revolutionary on paper, in execution the power was still held by the few elites, marginalizing the poor. The Late Republic likely was riddled with so much internal conflict is likely due to Rome’s great wealth that fueled the greed and lust for power within its magistrates. Caesar’s reforms allowed Rome’s transformation into an ultimately more efficient system of government, the emporer lacked possible opposition and thus could quickly pass policy regarding the various provinces and peoples Rome then ruled.

Though Caesar is not universally hailed as some hero that saved Rome. His military coup was ultimately motivated by greed. His decision to march on Rome was in response to the Senate relieving him of his successful but lengthy command in Gaul. In an alternate timeline he may have returned to Rome to pursue a very promising politcal career. But as we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome. It was ultimately a tyranny, despite the popularity Caesar enjoyed with the masses. The empire was also not executed in the most effective way possible. It allowed for ineffective and ultimately counterproductive rulers to control the entirely of the Mediterranean. Men such as Nero or Caligua were given extreme amounts of wealth, power, and influence because of Caesar’s upheaval of the Republic.

He may be one of the most famous men in history as well as a great leader and military commander, but Gaius Julius Caesar’s march on Rome was only the climax to a long period of internal violence within Rome. It was motivated from greed like most of the wars in the Late Republic, but it was likely inevitable. If Caesar had not done it, someone else would have. Caesar’s despotic takeover paved the way for future tyrants, but it was simply the eruption that was unavoidable given the Republic’s volatile political climate.

[decimusingenvinus]

Spartacus’ Revolt is the most widely-known story regarding slaves in Ancient Rome; it has even pervaded popular culture as shown above in the promotional poster for Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus. Sparatacus’ slave revolt was ultimately defeated by Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, but the story lives on. This story shows slaves as triumphant and heroic but was far from the status quo in Ancient Rome. 

If we compare our usual conceptions of slavery in Early America to those of Ancient Rome we can draw up some interesting conclusions. American slavery was based entirely on dehumanizing and disenfranchising African peoples which fueled the American agricultural industry during and after its founding. Slavery in Ancient Rome was much less racially-fueled and much more based on warfare and debt. Romans would take people from the territories they conquered and people in the empire who found themselves indebted to a lender into slavery. In the Twelve Tables it was stated that if someone could not repay a debt within 30 days of the lending then “he (the creditor) shall take [the debtor] with him. He shall bind [him] either with thong or with fetters, of which the weight shall be not less than fifteen pounds or shall be more, if he (the creditor) choose.” 

The endorsement of slavery in Rome’s first code of laws shows the integration of slavery into Roman society as an institution. Slaves were in a separate socioeconomic class, remaining in that lower class even after being legally freed. It’s very telling in the lack for a push for abolition in Rome in that no one saw slavery as something that needed to end. There are accounts of people sympathizing for slaves and advocated against cruelty towards them, but even in the event of a large scale slave revolt, no one in power pushed for the abolition of slavery in Rome.

That is one main difference between Ancient Rome and Early America. America eventually pushed for abolition and equality since its founding almost 250 years ago. Rome lasted more than 1000 years and fell before it ever began to question whether people should be property.

[decimusingenvinus]

History’s Cyclical Nature as Seen in Rome

The importance of learning history is often summed up in the often thrown-around line: “History repeats itself,” meaning that we should study history to ensure that we understand our past mistakes and do not repeat them. This idea, although simple, holds true as we can see through the eyes of the Romans.

The story usually goes like this: hard times create strong people, strong people create good times, good times create weak people, and weak people create hard times. This cycle, though extremely simplified here, is inherent in people’s nature and is observable throughout history, especially Rome’s. If we boil Rome’s history down to its most basic stages, we start at the Roman Kingdom,  which enjoys military and economic success on the Italian Peninsula after its founding. This prosperity ends with Tarquinius Superbus, a despot whose tyranny led to a coup led by Brutus that ushered in the Roman Republic, another high point in Roman history. The Republic is then brought to its knees during the Second Punic War, when Hannibal ravages Italy. During this Rome takes one of its greatest tolls in a single war, but after which Rome enjoys hegemony of the Mediterranean.

At this point in history, there is arguably no other kingdom, country, or military force that can stand to Rome’s legions. The Middle Republic is looked upon as a golden period within Roman history but all good things must come to an end as history shows. Rome’s enemy this time is not a separate entity, but the greed, trivial rivalries, and internal politics are what cause the fall of the once great Republic. We see more civil war during the Late Republic than we do external wars between the likes of Marius, Sulla, Caesar, and the like. The strife Rome faces is a result of the greed and often meaningless quarrel between its magistrates. The entire conflict between Marius and Sulla, from the open conflict to the massacre of political opponents, can be boiled down to their greed and lack of consideration for the broader impact of their actions. This hunger for power is likely due to Rome’s existing wealth and lack of competition. We see Rome once again turn to some sort of leader that is this time Julius Caesar, under his leadership and eventual assassination Rome is turned into the Empire which has its own golden age of growth and wealth, and the cycle repeats.

Human nature unfortunately remains a constant throughout our history, and despite our vast understanding of the past, we are doomed to this everlasting cycle between periods of growth and enlightenment that yield to ignorance and self-destruction.

[decimusingenvinus]

The Late Republic is a period in Roman history marked by the general themes of chaos and discord due to the increasing amount of violent acts, extreme policies, and militant politicians whose effects eventually allowed the once great Republic to be taken over by tyrannical emperors. The Republic once stood as a testament to democratic government but the Late Republic’s decline into civil war allowed incompetent rulers such as Caligula and Nero.

As depicted above, the discord of the Late Republic was a slippery slope, with each extreme politician leading to the next until Rome became an empire. It starts with the election of Tiberius Gracchus, which is where historians draw the line between the Middle and Late Republics. Tiberius’ radical ideas to redistribute land from the extremely wealthy to the poor led to his death at the hands of his dissidents, namely the wealthy whose land he was attempting to redistribute. This marks one of the first of soon to be many acts of violence within Rome. Not soon after we see Gaius Gracchus eventually also lose his life due to political disagreement.

Marius’ unprecedented seven consulships were littered with controversy, namely the last which he took by force along with Cinna and killed those in Rome he considered his opposition. Soon after Sulla retook the city from Marius and declared himself dictator which would later inspire Caesar to do the same, starting the Empire as we know it.

It has been said that chaos can be used as a ladder for political and personal gain, but I would rather equate chaos to a slippery slide that eventually leads to an eruption and leaves everyone worse than they were before, as we can see through Rome’s descent into tyranny.

[decimusingenvinus]

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (hereafter referred to as LQC) was a Roman statesman whose story is retold even now, thousands of years after he reigned as dictator of Rome. The story says that LQC was approached while he was plowing his small farm and informed that he has been nominated for the position of dictator in order to command Roman forces against the Aequi on Mount Algidus. He swiftly defeated the Aequi and soon after relinquished his dictatorship to return to his farm. The story is not one of extreme daring or a retelling of an exciting battle, but an exempla, anecdotes that are used to illustrate a point. Similar to how Livy is known for exemplarity in his writings to teach lessons through historical stories, we can look back on these exempla to find what point they are trying to make.

In LQC’s case, such a story is repeated to show the ideal Roman citizen, who is devoted to the state and efficient in the matters of state. Romans likely embellished and retold this story to reinforce their view of the ideal citizen and how everyone should act in matters of state. What’s interesting is how we have similar stories today without acknowledging them.

When we talk about modern, American exempla we can look at the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. It’s a short story that says that George Washington received a hatchet for his sixth birthday, with which he used to cut his father’s cherry tree. Upon seeing his tree, George’s father asked George if he had caused such damage, to which George replied he had. It’s a short story that was completely fabricated to simply tell some story about Washington, but now every child raised in America can probably retell it. It’s the perfect example of an exempla being employed in modern society. It’s a simple tale that implies that the American Messiah, George Washington, never lied and neither should any American.

It’s minute, cultural details like these that are most likely to be lost in the grand scheme of history despite their deep significance and impact into the image of the ideal American in the same way that the story of LQC forms the image of the ideal Roman. This is an insignificant but telling example of history’s tendency to repeat itself.

[decimusingenvinus]

Rome’s expansion is noteworthy in it of itself. Known as one of the world’s greatest empires, Rome’s control of the Mediterranean Sea has not been seen since. There have been greater wars fought since the time of Rome’s fall that were waged over less land in Europe alone. Think of Napoleon or Hitler’s rapid expansions of France and Germany, both looked to Rome for inspiration but neither could hold a candle to Rome’s total control over the Mediterranean.

The actual events that took place that lead to Rome’s hegemony what we know as Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa are interesting in their own right, but what is more impressive is the administration of such a massive land area and population. Modern technology has given us the ability to communicate near instantly and travel the entire world in days, but think of what technology the Romans had. The most advanced technology they are known for is their roads and aqueducts. I’m of course only exaggerating but in real terms the speed of news and action in the Empire posed a serious challenge in maintaining a hold of the Mediterranean.

According to ORBIS, an interactive map of the Roman empire that can calculate the approximate time it would take someone to travel within the empire, the quickest trip that a rider using horses in relay between Constantinople and Rome would take about 7 days. Imagine if the Persians attacked Constantinople, in 7 days the news gets to Rome and who knows how long it would take for them to respond in force with the army. Meanwhile today I hear of events that happen anywhere in the world almost as soon as they occur. Managing to run an empire with such a loosely connected people and an archaic information network is what impresses me about Rome’s history, it’s a logistical nightmare.

[decimusingenvinus]

It really is interesting how the story of the founding of Rome is one that has pervaded the common knowledge without any factual basis. At the very least, most people know the story of Romulus and Remus. It is said that the twins were born of Rhea Silvia, a Vestal virgin, and the Roman god of war, Mars. After which they were left to die along the Tiber River by their great uncle, Amulius, who was king of Alba Longa after deposing their grandfather, Numitor. While by the river the two babies were suckled by a she-wolf before being found by a shepherd, eventually learning of their heritage, reclaiming the throne for their grandfather, and founding Rome (during which Romulus killed Remus in a disagreement as seen above.) 

The story itself is interesting enough but what’s more interesting is the lack of evidence for the events described despite the story’s acceptance. This period of Roman history is shrouded in myth and legend due to the lack of written accounts but somehow this story has survived. Historians posit that Romulus and Remus never existed, but instead the story was fabricated in order to give the founding of Rome a captivating twist. Romulus’ name literally means “the Roman” and thus was likely derived from the name of the already existing city. This entire argument raises questions about what historical events we hold as factual without evidence to prove or disprove them. It can be especially difficult when early historians took these passed-down tales as true. We are thus left with written works from authors like Livy, who retell these stories as near fact. These fantastical stories are likely derived from humans’ nature to assign meaning to coincidental or meaningless events. Rome was one of the greatest empires in the history of the world, so it must have a great story and founder that we can attribute its greatness to, right?

In all likelihood, Rome developed organically from a settlement into a city state that accumulated great wealth and military power from a multitude of factors that are much less interesting than a compelling story of demigods, tyrants, revolts, and fratricide.