Republic, Principate, Or Dominate

"In the beginning, Rome was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompey and Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and Antony before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title 'Prince'." (Tac., 1).

OK--so which was the best form of government?

I voted Republic despite its flaws as an exclusive oligarchy. It had the potential to be the most 'fair' or productive, and the idea that it was sometimes not is not necessarily the fault of the system but of individual opportunists who undermined said system.

Certain protections and opportunities existed for all members of the society at one time or another and government was limited by law and rules vs. the whims of a single man... regardless of whether he was a sound administrator, an inadequate and debilitating tyrant or something in between.

[edit] and in reference to my post in the other 'principate vs. dominate thread'... because the Republic was inadequate at dealing with the growth and expansion was again not necessarily the fault of the system but of human failings.

I also voted for the republic.

The republic had its faults, but investing all power in a single individual is too risky. Absolute power is what turns a mere fool like Varro or Bibulus into a fanatical murderer like Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Elegabalus, etc.

The republic had its faults, but a more stable mechanism for transferring power was provided by the ballot box than by the battlefield or by the bedchamber. Once the senate and people of Rome lost their power to a dynastic rule of political generals, civil war became the rule rather than the exception for the period of the interregnum.

The republic had its faults, but a more deliberative and accountable mechanism for government finance was provided by the quaestors than by the freedmen overseeing the privy purse. The latter was a means of personal corruption, nepotism, bribery, and waste. With nearly unlimited power over the provincial tax-revenues and the money supply, the emperor could (and often did) engage in massively inflationary monetary policies that wiped out the savings of the modest and rich alike.

The republic had its faults, but the republican law courts--bastions of free speech--provided a mechanism for placing all men under the rule of law. During the principate, in contrast, members of the imperial household could (and did) commit incest, rape, and murder with impugnity.

The republic had its faults, but for 450 years, it largely succeeded in channeling the enormously competitive ambitions of the oligarchy into improving the state. During the republic, wastrels like Verres could be tried in open court and exiled (though many were not); during the principate, men like Sejanus were rewarded for their rapine, and countless others for nothing more than their servility. Simply put, no emperor could endure competition from the likes of a Caesar, a Pompey, a Lucullus, a Cicero, or a Cato; the republic had a dozen such men sitting in the same room, all adding to the glory of Rome.

Dominate anyone. I understand as a system, it seems inferior to the Republic because Emperors easily could have been corrupted. But the creation of the dominate along with tetrarchy did help put down the power of the army because killing one emperor would be useless since there would be 3 others with armies who can put down the rebellion.

Sometimes, you truly needed only one person to rule. Also the Republic doesn't offer equality among the provinces and its people, Rome was the center power. It was until Diocletian that Emperors did the right thing by being based in regions where they were needed of strategic importance, lest any incursion or rebellion started.

Yeah, my opinions are a bit messy.

I voted Republic even though I fell like the Principate was a better-run government. The provinces were treated better, the quality of generals and the soldiers was greater, and the infrastructure of the empire expanded. However I can

I also voted Republic. In it's prime, it did all that it could be expected to for it's size, in the terms mentioned already by PP

It had the potential to be the most 'fair' or productive

For the most part, the beauty of the Republic was that there was no need to

put down the power of the army because killing one emperor would be useless since there would be 3 others with armies who can put down the rebellion.

Sometimes, you truly needed only one person to rule.

The Republican system fully recognised that at times, rule by one person was the best option - hence emergency dictatorship.

I'm not so sure that the emergency dictatorships were such a good idea even if temporary. Cincinnatus and Sulla promptly renounced theirs, but the latter did so only after spilling much innocent blood.

I must echo cato's statement.

The Republic, dispite its flaws, was an effective means of channeling the oligarchies competitive sense for each family into something that helped SPQR, not just made them richer. Such as how Caesar conquered gaul partialy for his purposes of becoming famous and popular, just as Cicero defended Sextus Rocius. These acts did indeed do the intended, make the doer (Caesar and Cicero in this case) become popular, but it also improved the republic. Caesar added the provinces of Gaul and Cicero saved an innocent man from one of the worst deaths imaginable.

Also, until the marian reforms, the armies were controled by the senate, not by a general. That kept people from becoming gathering armies easily and becoming dicatators. This meant that the Republic was in control, and had a good system of checks and balances to keep things in place, even up to the highest office with 2 counsuls.

The Republic also managed to have a very high standard of morals and helenistic culture. Houses at that time were plainly designed with blank outsides and little furniture. The only thing decorated laviously were the floors, walls, and ceilings that were fabulously painted with frescoes and mosiacs. The republican virtues also were much like my doctrine of life and so I'm sure thats why I like it so much.

Anyways, to sum up, I voted Republic.

Each served its purpose at the time.

In a sense the republic was an adaptation of the monarchy which avoided rule by a single individual by splitting his powers between two men. But the essential system remained intact.

Similarly 400 or so years later, Augustus' principiate was an adaptation of the evolved republican system - most of whose features remained in operation.

A monarchy would not have served in 14BC, nor a principiate in 509BC.

So why have preferences? Value each.

Phil

Republic

Aside from the points already made, Rome was a much more honorable and resolute place during all but the very end of the Republican period.

Each served its purpose at the time.

In a sense the republic was an adaptation of the monarchy which avoided rule by a single individual by splitting his powers between two men. But the essential system remained intact.

Similarly 400 or so years later, Augustus' principiate was an adaptation of the evolved republican system - most of whose features remained in operation.

Neither the similarity of the republic to the monarchy nor the similarity of the prinicipate to the republic demonstrate that each form of government served a purpose at their time. This is an utter non sequitur. If the monarchy served its purpose at the time, what exactly was that purpose? Whose purpose? Did it do so better than the alternatives? It's as if you assume that whatever exists (and whenver it exists) is for the best, which is simply intellectual laziness. It may be true that what existed *was* for the best--but one cannot *assume* that it was merely from the fact that it existed. The evidence must come from the consequences of the change, not the incrementality of the change.

Each served its purpose at the time.

In a sense the republic was an adaptation of the monarchy which avoided rule by a single individual by splitting his powers between two men. But the essential system remained intact.

Similarly 400 or so years later, Augustus' principiate was an adaptation of the evolved republican system - most of whose features remained in operation.

 

Neither the similarity of the republic to the monarchy nor the similarity of the prinicipate to the republic demonstrate that each form of government served a purpose at their time. This is an utter non sequitur. If the monarchy served its purpose at the time, what exactly was that purpose? Whose purpose? Did it do so better than the alternatives? It's as if you assume that whatever exists (and whenver it exists) is for the best, which is simply intellectual laziness. It may be true that what existed *was* for the best--but one cannot *assume* that it was merely from the fact that it existed. The evidence must come from the consequences of the change, not the incrementality of the change.

Cato, there are times when sentimentality clearly blinds your logic. I'm afraid I'm a pragmatist, pure and not so simple. the names mean nothing to me.

The US is a concealed monarchy - what is the president but a constitutional monarch without the name. the US even have dynasties, only the Bush's are somewhat less interesting or historic than the Hapsburgs or the Windsors!!

The Roman monarchy reflected the customs and norms of the day - peoples tended to have kings. the trick is to understand what the Roman monarchy was - at times clearly Etruscan. Was it thrown out not for tyranny but for being foreign? The consuls had just as much power, and the sacred religious aspacts of the king continued down to the empire in the rex sacrorum.

Augustus used the republican powers - tribunician, consular and proconsular, but adapted them in a system in which he had overpowering auctoritas.

It was throughout an evolution, NOT a change per se.

Purpose in politics is about usefulness, practicality and success - if those things don't apply, things change. Who does the changing? Who has the purpose? - why the elite/the ruling oligarchy of the day. Who else is there?

if systems don't work they change perforce (failure or defeat as in Germany 1918) or are changed (US 1776; England 1649 or 1688).

By and large there is no choice until change is imposed or forced by circumstances - government continues and reflects what has been. Unless or until someone decides to change it. The US system today broadly reflects what the founding fathers wanted to keep or change in the previously imposed system. It also reflects the power that the founding elite wished to take from the crown into their own hands. It continues because it has not yet failed or been over thrown (it may have come close in 1860ish).

by the way cato - I never assume anything is for the best. I also never said that. Conventional wisdoms surivie because that is what they do, until they cease to be the conventional wisdom. Systems of government the same. there are no certainties in politics - all is about perception and usefulness.

Phil

Quite apart from that, I disagree for the same reasons with Pantagathus- none of the systems were "honourable"!! What does the word mean in political terms/

It was throughout an evolution, NOT a change per se.

An evolution without change is a contradiction.

Conventional wisdoms surivie because that is what they do, until they cease to be the conventional wisdom. Systems of government the same.

This is a tautology, not an explanation.

I'd suggest that your cynicism has affected your logic, and I'd strongly urge you to refrain from your anti-American criticism. It has no place in a discussion on Rome.

Oh boy, lets not talk about US politics and its sytem again. I've learned from my mistakes. Unless someone can make a thread on this in the After Hours Lounge.

And please don't accuse the US executive branch as being an monarchy or failed system. We have something the called the Checks & Balances you know.

By the way, did someone just vote for anarchy.

Dominate anyone. I understand as a system, it seems inferior to the Republic because Emperors easily could have been corrupted. But the creation of the dominate along with tetrarchy did help put down the power of the army because killing one emperor would be useless since there would be 3 others with armies who can put down the rebellion.

Sometimes, you truly needed only one person to rule. Also the Republic doesn't offer equality among the provinces and its people, Rome was the center power. It was until Diocletian that Emperors did the right thing by being based in regions where they were needed of strategic importance, lest any incursion or rebellion started.

Yeah, my opinions are a bit messy.

I agree with you Flavius, though I wish the Tetrachy was an option all it's own though the Dominate is kinda combined with it.

Either arguement we each take, one side has more pros and cons and each is for given situations. Systems change and evolve to deal with current or contemporary issues and problems. The Republic used Dicatorship in cases of emergency, while the regional procons and governors dealth with civil and military matters in thier respective regions. The Principate was the evolution from using a dictatorship in emergencies to using it all the time to deal with any and all issues not just dire ones. The Tetrarchy was the transition to rivert back to a more spread out power-base. Two Augustii, (one Senior the other Junior), and two Caesars one for each Augustus. While there was a clear chain of command each had realitive free reign, (so to speak), in thier assigned areas and dealth with the thier own important issues. Instead of proconsul or praetorian prefect, (as we know the change in the office in the later empire), handling the tasks you had a man with an army to back him up and with strong Imperium. Perhaps the later empire needed more hands on, iron-fist administration and control given the times and conditions it was used. Though I am inclined to think the Tetrarchy would have been an excellent system had it not been for men in power wishing to see themselves and sole-ruler. The main problem with the Tetrarchy was that the place of Augustus and Caesar was not defined well enough, in the sense of succession I mean. The Tetrarchy was funcitioning quite well until Constantinus Chorlus passed away and Constantine was proclaimed to the purple by his father's army. IIRC the problem with Diocletian and Maximian's, (forced for him it would seem), abidication was that it led to other men proclaiming themselves Augustus thus started the civil war. Perhaps if a better system had been prepared or at least tinkered with we would have a lasting system that was not a one time deal.