Ask The Expert - Dr. Arthur Keaveney

Welcome to the Forum Dr. Keaveney, we are very pleased to have you here!

Recently there was a discussion here about Cato the Censor's view on Hellenism and its potential for a negative effect on Rome and whether or not Cato's concern was justified, -or rather-, whether it properly foreshadowed events to come.

After the discussion, I was incidentally reading Pliny's last few books on metals and on painting and was struck with the disparaging tone that Pliny assumes throughout when discussing the valuation of luxury items (precious metals, works of art, number of servants, etc.) in his day compared to the frugal days before the Punic Wars and the wars in Greece.

Pliny it seemed was making Cato's argument over 200 years later from the other end while looking back and making actual comparisons; i.e. that crime had increased, food was undervalued while luxury items were way overvalued and the general character of a typical Roman was more debase.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether or not you feel the level of acquisitive individualism that permeated into Roman society from the 2nd Century BC onward had a negative or positive effect on Rome in general?

More specifically however, do you feel that it could have been this element of Hellenism (acquisitive individualism) that hastened the collapse of Rome's Republican political system; thereby following the political cycle laid out by Polybius in his 6th Chapter to a "T"?

Any insight is greatly appreciated!

The Romans were big on moral decay. Absolutely obssessed and they used it as an explanation of historical change to the exclusion of virtually everything else. Cato and Pliny are in this tradition and have a look too at Sallust. Basically most modern historians would regard it as nonsense.

Hello Dr. Keaveney and thank you for answering our questions!

 

The earliest period of Rome always intrigued me, especially that the Romans managed the complete assimilation of the Etruscans to Italic Rome in the Roman Republic. Now there comes my questions, how important is the study of the Etruscans to better understand the Beginning of the Roman Republic and what (if any) progress has been made in the research of the complex relationship between those two civilations?

This remains a very controversial area and opinion tends to swing back and forth. At the moment a lot of people think Etruscan influence was small. See Tim Cornell "The Begginings of Rome".

Thanks for taking the time to consider our questions:

 

The actions of Tiberius Gracchus promted a faction within the senate to turn to violence in order to thwart his proposed reforms. This seems to have created a precedent of violence that increasingly plagued Rome until the end of the Republic.

 

My question is this: what was it about the Republic pre-Gracchus that prevented recourse to violence? Mere lack of provocative legislation or a deeper rooted sense of responsibility? If the latter, then what changed?

I would say the potential was always there, just as it was with the revolutionary Roman army. It just took the right combination of circumstances to spark it off. I would say, though, that once the precedent was set the sense of responsibility was very quickly lost. On the revolutionary potential of the Roman army I am going to have something to say in a forthcoming book.

Thanks for the time Dr Keaveney.

 

How core or otherwise do you think the Tribunician reforms under the Sullan constitution were to Sullas overall plan for strengthening the republic ?

In a word vital. Tribunician agitation had been the great domestic problem for some 50 years and Sulla had to tackle it.

Dr. Keaveney, welcome and thanks for coming to our forum. We hope you

thanks for your time Dr Keaveney

during the time of sulla's proscriptions around 80bc when he decided to let caeser live even though he had defied sulla's order to divorce his then wife Cornelia, my first question is why did he do this knowing that caeser was a relative of his most hated enemy Marius?

secondly, if sulla had got rid of caeser when he had the chance what effect would this have had on the fall of the republic, ie- would the republic have survived??

thank you

maximus

Thank you Dr. Keaveney for participating in our "Ask the Expert" discussion topic.