==========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:05:41 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDB
SU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Scott <>
Subject:      Roman Constitution

I was putting together an email with many of the same points that Linda made on
 Roman Rule.  Rather than reiterate, I will add some of my t
houghts.

Linda writes <snip>
<The Chambers' text describes Roman constitution as one that was not written.
< Instead, it was "a set of carefully observed procedures and customs of
<rule".

Having a constitution that was not written could have (and did) c
ause major
 problems.  There were some benefits though.  When the Plebians wanted to break
 away the Romans were about to alter the makeup of power to please the Plebians.
  That change alone may have saved the Romans by giving them the manpower they
 wou
ld need to win the years of conquest that was to follow.


Linda writes <snip>
<... The power, however always seemed to remain ultimately in
<the hands of the upper class through such things as restrictions and required
<Senate sponsorship. The definition
 of upper class seemed to evolve somewhat
<but was established by family association.

I find it very interesting that the senate made (or forced) most of the
 decisions).  This was a of body mostly old, rich, ex-politicians.  When there
 was a vote of th
e citizens, the rich were allowed to vote first.  This allowed
 them to control the vote - if they all voted the same way.  (Chambers).

ODDITIES
Finally, its amazing the Romans succeeded when their warriors had to arm
 themselves and many of these had to
 leave their farms - usually losing the farm
 by the time they returned.  I have not been able to find the motivation for
 these men to enlist.  Any thoughts?
==========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:30:43 -0500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY1
01@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Frank 
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

At 10:26 PM 2/7/96 -0700, you wrote:

>        The Struggle was a long one, but the fact that it succeeded at all
is quite exception
al.  Obviously, a threatened secession by the plebians
posed a serious enough threat to those in power to encourage their
acquiescence, but the text says little about how the further concessions
were obtained.


Dear Teresa:

     Many of the laws that ma
rk different stages of the "Struggle of the
Orders" had to be passed several times.  The repetition indicates that the
goals of the plebeians were consistent, but also that the implementation
could also be frustrated.  I feel the most important principle 
embodied in
the Lex Hortensia (287) is that sovereignty is derived from the people, that
all must CONFORM to law.

It is most notable that ". . . one effect of the struggle of the orders was
to make the state an even more efficient machine for conquest, s
ince the
plebians could now feel that they had a more favorable position within the
system and were thus more willing to fight for their country." [Chambers
94].  I wonder if the patricians had this result in mind. . .
>
According to the text, Roman expan
sion went parallel with changes on the
domestic front.  In order to succeed in the former, Rome had to expand her
citizen base and expand her manpower reserves.  A problem endemic to
aristocracies is that they are not prolific breeders of legitimate child
ren.
As a result the number of patricians saw a decline in the families from 53
to 29.  This wealthy class began to bare a greater burden in fighting and as
patricians could not (by definition) be created anew.  They gradually lost
ground.


>        The 
other point I would like to make is the fact that the Roman
constitution was never a written one but rather an agreed upon system of
conventions and customs [Chambers 92].

 I too saw this section and had to re-read it several times to overcome
contraditi
ng information.  I believe it (Chambers) implies the origional
Constitution was never written.  I say this because between 320 and 287 the
plebeian issues of access to public office and protection from the arbitrary
actions of magistrates were resolved in
 the "...written law established in
the XII tables and the Civil Code of Flavius."  The role of the tribues was
defined; especially their ius auxilii (right to intervene).  Society and the
XII Tables.

This must have had a major role in the changes impose
d later on by usurping
factions (Caesar especially, and the two triumvirates) who were able to
circumvent custom and seize power.  Had their constitution been written, and
therefore codified as supreme law (as it is here in the U.S.A.), there would
have b
een a firm foundation upon which to keep the checks and balances in place.


I believe by the time these dictators did their deeds, many of the orders
were in fact written; however, they had not teeth.  If anyone challenged the
laws, who could stop them. 
 This is exactly what occurred.


Frank
==========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:39:11 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Nancy 
Subject:      Rome Discussion

Ite
m Subject: cc:Mail Text
     I was not aware that gang warfare existed during the Roman Republic
     era.  The fact that alot of unemployed Romans could only make a living
     by joining a gang was a sad reflection on both the populares and the
     opt
imates.  Rather than standing firm on an issue that would
     positively impact the people as a whole, they were easily swayed back
     and forth with bribes or bullied into voting one way or the other.  It
     seemed to be chaos when it came to electi
on day.

     The weakness in their army by the Senate granting posts to family and
     those with a juicy bribe rather than to the most skilled was common.
     I wonder how long it took before someone realized how much their
     behavior patterns impa
cted their success and future.  I realize this
     is only part of the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic but
     it seemed to have a significant bearing.

     Nancy K.
==========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:15:08 -0700R
eply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Will < >
Subject:      HY101 The Plebeians

A few people have already mentioned the power the plebeians had
because of their need for battle.  Were the pl
ebeians aware that they had
this power though?  The book mentions privileges were given to the
plebeians to make them more willing to fight for their country.  Would the
plebeians have stood together in a form of a strike to gain those rights?

Will S.
==
========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:05:22 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Nancy < >
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

Item Subject: Roman Constitution
  
   In response to your wondering how they motivated men to join the army
     knowing that more than likely they would lose their farms, etc. upon
     return...

     Did they even have a choice?  As I understood it they were under
     obligation to ser
ve in the army.

     Nancy


==========================
==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 03:45:23 GMT
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Cindy  < >
Subject:      W
ho is in power?

2-8-96, Thursday

I truly enjoyed the section on the Struggle of the Orders.  It seemed to me as
I was reading that the patricians were the ones that had the power even though
the plebeians at the end of this time were given many privileg
es and rights.
At the end, they had the "absolute legal right to pass laws", but it was the
patricians in the Senate who made the legislation go forward so that the
Assembly of Tribes could vote on these issues.  True, there were plebeians who
were consul
s, but the patricians far outweighed them.  In fact, the book
states that "the changes in the constitution" were made by the
"patrician-plebeian upper class."

Cindy
==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 03:55:12 GMT
Reply-To:     HY101
 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Cindy  <>
Subject:      Re: Gladiator movies for extra credit?

>   Jeff writes:

>     Still, representation and status in the Republic seemed to default to
>     the Fami
lies with money, land, or lineage.  I assume this is their
>     "right to rule".  I imagine their conservatism was based on the
>     presevation of their status, property, and legacy for their
>     descendents.  But it seems important that they were wi
lling to have
>     plebeians as part of the decision-making body, albeit forced though
>     revolts, and all.

>   From my studies of social conflicts, I wonder if the reason that the
patricians let the plebeians take part in the decision-making process
 was
because the masses (plebeians) far outweighed the wealthy (patricians) and so
just to be on the safe side and not to cause any unrest, the patricians let
the plebeians take part in whatever politics they wanted to within reason.
This would allow the 
patricians to still have the biggest say in what
legislation was passed, but at the same time calm the masses.  Just an
observation.  By the way, I like the idea of movies!

Cindy
==========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 23:48:10 -0500
Rep
ly-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Darin  
Subject:      Rome

     This question doesn't really fall into the specifications that Dr. Knox
outlined, but from my readings, I am continually am
azed at how the Romans
incorporated  and emulated so much into their own culture from the Greeks.
With such a vast empire consisting of so many cultures, why did the Greek
influence continue to be such a large part of the Roman culture where others
(at le
ast from my limited point of view) seem to be so much a smaller part of
Roman culture compared to the Greek influence.
     Maybe I am just ignorant, and the previous isn't really much  of a
question. It is more of a fascination that I have when looking a
t the many
things Rome incorporated from Greece.
==========================
Date:         Thu, 8 Feb 1996 22:07:49 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Mike  
Subject:      Re: Roman C
onstitution

At 04:05 PM 2/8/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Item Subject: Roman Constitution
>    Response to Scott's post.
>
>     In response to your wondering how they motivated men to join the army
>     knowing that more than likely they would lose their farm
s, etc. upon
>     return...
>
>     Did they even have a choice?  As I understood it they were under
>     obligation to serve in the army.
>
>     Nancy

  The Chambers text states, "And from Rome's earliset days as a republic,
the theme of its history 
was conquest and domination. The result was the
creation of a society that was primarily a military machine." Also, I have
not read in the text or any of the lectures (yet), that there was a morale
problem with the soldiers. They must have been well taken
 care of to have
been as successful as they were. Except for their dealings with Hannibal,
the Roman army were very succesful in their endeavours. If there were too
many hardships or the soldiers were unhappy with their "military career",
the Roman Empire
 would not have been so vast.
  I must add, that more than once I read of soldiers being deeply devoted to
their generals. Besides receiveing some of the spoils of war, Roman soldiers
must have been provided strong moral support and leadership from theirg
enerals.
Sulla, Octavian and Mark Antony all invaded Rome with their "Roman armies."
It would take devouted men to invade their homeland and these were indeed
devouted men.

Mike
==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 00:13:00 MST
Reply-
To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         John  
Subject:      Re: Rome Discussion

Nancy k writes:
>     I was not aware that gang warfare existed during the Roman Republic
>     era.  The fact that a
lot of unemployed Romans could only make a living
>     by joining a gang was a sad reflection on both the populares and the
>     optimates.  Rather than standing firm on an issue that would
>     positively impact the people as a whole, they were easily
 swayed back
>     and forth with bribes or bullied into voting one way or the other.  It
>     seemed to be chaos when it came to elections.

>     The weakness in their army by the Senate granting posts to family and
>     those with a juicy bribe rathe
r than to the most skilled was common.
>     I wonder how long it took before someone realized how much their
>     behavior patterns impacted their success and future.  I realize this
>     is only part of the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republi
c but
>     it seemed to have a significant bearing.

I too find this interesting Nancy, it seems to bring to light a comment made
by Chambers on page 97, "Historians have long debated whether this policy
represented deliberate imperialism or was at least
 partly accidental." this
is concerning the expansion of the empire into the Mediteranian. Chambers
explains how some of these conquests were intitiated out of attacks made
against Rome and they retaliated, and won!(Kind of like poking a wasps nest
with a
 stick and getting stung several times!) Romes goverment was vicious
with enforcement of its laws and expected its provinces to comply as
illustrated by the description of Aemilianus' action against Spain.

I don't want to continually draw comparisons to 
the 20th century but doesnt
this remind you of our own political system with bribes, illegal
contributions, kick backs to lobbyist...ad infinitum. Chambers makes
refrence to this on page 99 in his description of the role of the governors
and the publicani
. Which also brings a question to mind. Chambers states
that Senators were forebidden to be in busines yet the pulicani's often were
more whealthy than the senators, what was the incentive to become a senator
over a publicani other than polictical power? 
 Did prestige and social
status have more glories than a wealthy business man with enourmous wealth,
land and luxuries? How did Senators earn money? Were they paid by the state.
I did not find the answers I'll keep reading


John 
========================
==
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:05:13 -0500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Frank  <>
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

At 10:07 PM 2/8/96 -0700, you wrote:
>At 04:05 PM 2/8/96 
-0700, you wrote:
>>Item Subject: Roman Constitution
>>    Response to Scott's post.
>>
>>     In response to your wondering how they motivated men to join the army
>>     knowing that more than likely they would lose their farms, etc. upon
>>     return.
..
>>
>>     Did they even have a choice?  As I understood it they were under
>>     obligation to serve in the army.
>>
>>     Nancy
>
>  The Chambers text states, "And from Rome's earliset days as a republic,
>the theme of its history was conquest and d
omination. The result was the
>creation of a society that was primarily a military machine." Also, I have
>not read in the text or any of the lectures (yet), that there was a morale
>problem with the soldiers. They must have been well taken care of to hav
e
>been as successful as they were. Except for their dealings with Hannibal,
>the Roman army were very succesful in their endeavours. If there were too
>many hardships or the soldiers were unhappy with their "military career",
>the Roman Empire would not 
have been so vast.
>  I must add, that more than once I read of soldiers being deeply devoted to
>their generals. Besides receiveing some of the spoils of war, Roman soldiers
>must have been provided strong moral support and leadership from their
>general
s.
>Sulla, Octavian and Mark Antony all invaded Rome with their "Roman armies."
>It would take devouted men to invade their homeland and these were indeed
>devouted men.
>
>Mike
>


If I may add one thing to Mike's observation.  We must understand the mak
e
up of the Roman Army and society.  Traditionally, the Romans employed a
citizen militia.  The right to vote was tied with the responsibility to
serve in the army.  The core of the army was the peasant farmer (since Rome
was basically an agrarian society
.)  These individuals could not afford to
remain in continuous service.  There was however, a large number of
property-less Roman citizens who, though not liable for service, were so
employed.  Marius, who to meet the dangers of the Germans (104), enrolle
d
these proletarians and they continued as a group to be used thereafter
("Marius abolished the old requirement that a soldier had to own at least a
modest amount of property...." Chambers pp104.)  Not until this time did the
"true" professional army exis
t.

We must remember, Land meant wealth and wealth meant political power.
Soldiers respected their generals, not for their military skills (we'll talk
about that in a minute) but for their ability to provide them the wealth
they wish for (I bet everyone w
ould love Ed McMahon for that $10,000,000.00
publisher's clearinghouse check.)  Remember Pompey joined in the First
Triumvirate with Caesar and Crassus over the issue of land grants for his
men after "...his Eastern victories...."

In so far as the milita
ry skills of the Romans, I tend to disagree that they
were so very good.  Remember what Hannibal did with about 24,000 men.  After
many battles out of Italy, he crossed the Alps (lost most of his elephants
and faught the first battle with about 24,000 men
 to 40,000 for Rome.  This
battle along the Trebia River saw "barely 10,000 men survive..."  The next
major battle at Cannae he faced 70,000 Romans and only 2,000 escaped.
However, on his return to Africa he had to get his 20,000 men out.  Now
let's look 
at the numbers.  The Romans lost 98,000 men to Hannibal's 4,000 -
not a good fighting machine by the numbers.

I use to think this was a Chinese say that came as a result of the Japanese
victory over the Russians at Port Arthur; however, it might go back 
to this
era of the Romans.  "Take one step backwards to take two steps forwards."
That is what the Romans had.  The constantly "lost the battles but won the
war."  Their losses at sea were equally as bad; however, they were excellent
learners and improvis
ors.  When they couldn't beat the navies they turned
their navies into armies (putting the planks on the ships and sending their
troops on board the enemy ships.) Scipio took Hannabal's tactics and turned
them against him in North Africa, where conceivabl
y Hann. had the home field
advantage (elephants).  I feel the Romans GREW into a fighting machine
because of their ingenious Constitution that gave them the Time (hence
manpower) necessary to learn from mistakes.

Just a though.

Frank
===================
=======
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:21:55 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Nancy 
Subject:      Gang Wars and Graffiti

Item Subject: cc:Mail Text
     Not only did they have 
gang wars but apparently they were the
     inventors of graffiti!  Now we know who's responsible for all this
     garbage today!

     On page 93, Chambers shows a photo of the graffiti painted on the
     walls of Pompeii to favor one candidate or anot
her in the elections.
     Obviously they didn't have MTV back then...
==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:42:23 -0500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Linda T."
 
Subject:      ROMAN CONSTITUION

I was made curious by Frank's remark regarding the Roman constitution not
being written.

   <I too saw this section and had to reread it several times to overcome
contradicting       information> (Frank )

The Law of th
e Twelve Tables was formalized and inscribed on tablets around
450 BC.  "They covered all categories of law and included specific penalties
for various infractions" (Encarta 95).

The Canuleian Law allowed marriages between the patricians and plebians.  T
he
Licinian-Sexton Laws provided that one of the two consuls would be Plebian.
 (Compton's)

Would these not be considered written?  Were these written laws the
exceptions and not the rule??

Encarta offed that the Law of the Twelve Tables was drafted to 
appease the
plebians who felt they were not adequately protected by unwritten laws
interpreted by patrician judges.
==========================

==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:53:27 -0500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.
EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Linda T." <>
Subject:      Roman Rule - Threats

With regard to rule, wouldn't the sheer number of plebians verus the nubmer
of patricians (or even patrician/plebians) have represented a sign
ificiant
threat?

For example, I read in Compton's Reference Library that the plebians went on
what we would call today, a general strike.  This is what inspired the
patricians to not only cancel all plebian debts, but also allow the plebians
to be repres
ented by the Tribunes.

According to the Chamber's text, the patricians only represented about 5-7
percent of the people.
==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:55:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101
 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

Teresa said:
>
>        The Struggle was a long one, but the fact that it succeeded at all
is >quite exceptional.  Obviously, a threatened
 secession by the plebians
posed a >serious enough threat to those in power to encourage their
acquiescence, but >the text says little about how the further concessions
were obtained.  It is

The _secessio_ was an interesting technique. Since Roman law sa
id only those
within the city limits could be summoned into military service, the plebs
simply left town! _Secessio_ means, literally, to sit apart from, which is
what they did.

Once the precedent and its effectiveness had been established, it was
someti
mes sufficient merely to threaten _secessio_ in order to win
concessions. This was doubly effective during times of war, which were
frequent enough.

>
>        The other point I would like to make is the fact that the Roman
>constitution was never a writ
ten one but rather an agreed upon system of
>conventions and customs [Chambers 92].  This must have had a major role in
the >changes imposed later on by usurping factions (Caesar especially, and
the two >triumvirates) who were able to circumvent custom an
d seize power.
Had their >constitution been written, and therefore codified as supreme law
(as it is here >in the U.S.A.), there would have been a firm foundation upon
which to keep the >checks and balances in place.
>

In some ways it is harder to change
 tradition than to change written law,
especially to effect an abrupt change. I want to correct an impression,
however: while there was no document that was The Roman Constitution, this
does not mean nothing was written. All laws were written down and wer
e
published. One of the significant differences is that there was never
(during the Republic) an attempt to regularize and rationalize the laws,
mainly because there was no supreme document like our Constitution. Teresa
is right, but not quite for the rea
son she stated.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:00:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.
IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

Scott said,

>ODDITIES
>Finally, its amazing the Romans succeeded when their warriors had to arm
> themselves and many of these had to leave their farms
 - usually losing the
farm
> by the time they returned.  I have not been able to find the motivation for
> these men to enlist.  Any thoughts?
>

They didn't enlist. The Roman citizen was liable to serve the state for
twenty campaigns (the burden may have
 been lighter in the early Republic).
Roman soldiers were not volunteers.

OTOH, it's an overstatement to say the "usually" lost their farms. Some did.
And it got worse in the later Republic.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu
.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:19:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      
Re: Rome Discussion

Nancy K. remarked on gang wars in the late Republic. This requires a bit of
explanation, mainly because the word "gang" carries such strong connotations
in modern American society.

Any Roman of significance was a _patron_, a word tha
t translates pretty much
straight across to English. The important man had many other men who were
his dependents. These men were both great and small, from public officials
to family members to poor men of talent. Some families had been the
dependents of
 others for generations, owing their jobs and position in
society to the relationship. Others were simply individuals who had done a
favor at some time.

The great man -- let us say he is a senator -- would receive visitors in the
morning, hearing petitio
ns, granting favors, judging disputes. He then would
head for the Forum to participate in the day's public business, or perhaps
would go out of town to one of his estates. He would be accompanied by a
crowd of followers, called the _corona_. You could tel
l the importance of a
man not only by the size but the quality of his followers. Every trip to the
Senate was a re-statement of a man's position in society. A very important
man, such as our senator, would have in his train men who were themselves
importa
nt and who had their own network of dependents.

If all this sounds a bit like the Godfather, you would not be too far wrong.
Sort of a cross between that and lobbyists.  ;-)

Now add in the second ingredient: self-help. There was no regular police
force 
in ancient Rome (or in any other society we will study in this
course). If someone stole from you, you did not call the police, you dealt
with it yourself. Most patricians, and even some plebs, went about the city
armed, usually with a dagger. This was si
mple self-protection, not because
the city was so violent but because most Roman citizens were military
veterans anyway and because the ethic of the time was that you relied
primarily on yourself and your family for protection.

In normal times, there mig
ht be occasions when someone got out of line, but
that would have been exceptional. In the late Republic, however, the times
were most definitely out of joint. Rapid population growth brought many poor
people into the city who naturally entered into someo
ne's service as quickly
as possible. Once the politicians began using their network of dependents to
initiate political violence, the situation did indeed degenerate into
something hardly better than gangs. But it was a degeneration of
institutions that h
ad served Rome well for several centuries.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:25:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender
:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Gladiator movies for extra credit?

OK, Jeff was being silly. Even so, I would welcome references to movies. I'm
not going to offer extra credit,
 but I'm very much willing for people to
discuss movies about Rome and, later, about the Middle Ages.  Books too.

If that traffic starts to overwhelm other discussion I'll ask people to talk
privately, but until and unless that happens I'll leave the inv
itation open.

A great gladiator movie is Spartacus. Much of the movie is accurate at the
historical level, though the romance and personal relationships are largely
fictional. Watch for the battle scenes -- formations and tactics are
accurate, but this m
ovie is also famous for having in some of the crowd
scenes extras who can be seen still wearing their wristwatches!

Quo Vadis has some memorable scenes of the Great Fire of 64, and Peter
Ustinov makes a wonderful Nero.

I'll let others chime in.

Dr. E.L
. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:28:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:        
 "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Rome

Darin wrote:
>     This question doesn't really fall into the specifications that Dr. Knox
>outlined, but from my readings, I am continually amazed at how the Romans
>incorporated  and emula
ted so much into their own culture from the Greeks.
>With such a vast empire consisting of so many cultures, why did the Greek
>influence continue to be such a large part of the Roman culture where others
>(at least from my limited point of view) seem to 
be so much a smaller part of
>Roman culture compared to the Greek influence.
>     Maybe I am just ignorant, and the previous isn't really much  of a
>question. It is more of a fascination that I have when looking at the many
>things Rome incorporated fro
m Greece.

That's an excellent question, Darin. See if you can find anything specific
in the textbook. Roman fascination for things Greek was not there from the
beginning, it developed over time, and only in certain areas.

I'll provide more details as it
 seems appropriate, but for now I'll say
this: Much of what we know about the Greeks is only because the Romans
preserved it.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:     
    Sat, 10 Feb 1996 16:20:52 EST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Chad 
Subject:      Greek Loyalty vs. Roman Loyalty

Frank  wrote:
>One question I am pondering, it won't leave my min
d.  In Hannibal's great
>accomplishments on Italy proper, the fact that Carthage ruled the seas
>(early in the wars), the Athenian fiasco in Syracuse, the large Greek
>presence in Magna Graecia and the fact that the Macedonian Wars were
>fought at the sam
e time as the Punic Wars - WHY IN THE WORLD
> WOULD ANY GREEK 'CAPTAIN' A SHIP FOR THE ROMANS????
>"...they were still hiring Greeks to captain their ships--...."  Any thoughts?

To me this illustrates how different the ideas of loyalty were in the two
cu
ltures. The Greeks were fiercely loyal - to their city. Loyalty to the Greek
culture and people was a far distant second priority. The Romans, on the other
hand, emphasized loyalty to the Republic (later the Empire). This loyalty could
be shared by anyone
 who enjoyed the relative priviledges of Roman citizenship,
even if they were far from Rome. To a Greek ship captain, his first loyalty
would  be to his home city. But if his city was friendly to Rome, he would have
as much or more loyalty to Rome as he w
ould to a distant Greek city or league.
==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 16:20:49 EST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Chad 
Subject:      Roman rule: conquer a
nd assimilate

Much of Rome's successful expansion was due to their administrative skill in
organizing their conquered lands by establishing various degrees of priviledge
and responsibility among them. (Chambers, p.96) It seems that this ability to
share 
some degree of power to maintain peace may have developed through the
process of compromise and power sharing that occured ealier during the "Struggle
of the Orders."

Just as the patricians learned to compromise and make concessions to the
plebeians to m
aintain peace and social order, the Roman leaders saw the value in
sharing limited power and priviledge with its conquered people in order to
maintain peace.
==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:14:13 EST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101
@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Chad 
Subject:      Greek influence in Roman literature

Dr Knox wrote:
>That's an excellent question, Darin. See if you can find anything specific
>in the textbook. Roman fascin
ation for things Greek was not there from the
>beginning, it developed over time, and only in certain areas.

Though Greek literature was older than the city-states themselves, Rome did not
develop a significant literature until the age of conquest. "The 
earliest
preserved Latin literature is the comedies, influenced by the Greeks, that were
written by Plautus and Terence. These playwrights imitated Greek New Comedy . .
. in which the plays were entirely fiction." A tradition of historical writing
began w
ith the Greek Polybius. He was deported as a hostage to Rome and wrote a
Roman history that helped create a Roman literary tradition. (Chambers, p. 101)
==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:53:37 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@ID
BSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Scott  
Subject:      Looking for reasons Rome was successful in conquering her
              neighbors

The Roman republic was a culture with deep military roots.  Voting in the two

 consuls annually by the army with the power to command troops formed many of
 the polical battles during the expansion.  Giving these politicians 20,000 men
 to carry out their campaign promises is part of expansion politics that helped
 fueled the wars
.

Severals things helped Rome win the wars, but endless supplies of men and
 wealthhad the biggest effect.  Granting full citiqenship (or atleast
 protection) to conquered cities during the early expansion was key to Rome
 building the Republic.  These c
ities wealth and military manpower that would be
 needed in the Punic Wars that were to follow.

It is amazing that Rome was the victor given the number of men and ships that
 were lost to Carthage and most notibly Hannibal.  Rome would surely have been
 
defeated had it not been for her great wealth and seemingly endless military
 manpower.  The numbers gave Rome the time needed to adjust her military
 strategy after each severe loss and move on to the next battle having "lost the
 battle, but not the war
."
==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 16:29:41 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Mike  
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

>> Except for their dealings wit
h Hannibal,
>>the Roman army were very succesful in their endeavours. If there were too
>>many hardships or the soldiers were unhappy with their "military career",
>>the Roman Empire would not have been so vast.
>>  I must add, that more than once I read 
of soldiers being deeply devoted to
>>their generals. Besides receiveing some of the spoils of war, Roman soldiers
>>must have been provided strong moral support and leadership from their
>>generals.

>>Mike

>From Frank
>
>In so far as the military skill
s of the Romans, I tend to disagree that they
>were so very good.  Remember what Hannibal did with about 24,000 men.  After
>many battles out of Italy, he crossed the Alps (lost most of his elephants
>and faught the first battle with about 24,000 men to 4
0,000 for Rome.  This
>battle along the Trebia River saw "barely 10,000 men survive..."  The next
>major battle at Cannae he faced 70,000 Romans and only 2,000 escaped.
>However, on his return to Africa he had to get his 20,000 men out.  Now
>let's look a
t the numbers.  The Romans lost 98,000 men to Hannibal's 4,000 -
>not a good fighting machine by the numbers.
>
>"Take one step backwards to take two steps forwards."
>That is what the Romans had.  The constantly "lost the battles but won the
>war."  Thei
r losses at sea were equally as bad; however, they were excellent
>learners and improvisors.  When they couldn't beat the navies they turned
>their navies into armies (putting the planks on the ships and sending their
>troops on board the enemy ships.) Sc
ipio took Hannabal's tactics and turned
>them against him in North Africa, where conceivably Hann. had the home field
>advantage (elephants).  I feel the Romans GREW into a fighting machine
>because of their ingenious Constitution that gave them the Time 
(hence
>manpower) necessary to learn from mistakes.
>
>
  I agree that the Roman army did have their problems, but to be successful
in conquering such a vast territory your fighting machine must be powerful.
I also agree that the political system must hav
e played an important part in
woeing its people during times of trouble as stated in the Punic Wars
lecture.  But I also feel that this political body contributed to many of
the armies failures. By electing consuls every year they were putting their
armie
s at risk. It is rather hard to change loyalties in mid-battle.
  The other thing that did make the Roman army successful is its ability to
adapt and learn from its failures. The whole point of war is victory. If you
lose a few battles in the process, tha
t is all part of the game.

Mike

P.S. I found a site that has what appears to contain interesting information
on the Roman Republic.
http://www.ganetnet/~atulv/roman "The Warefare and Tactics of the Roman
Republic"
I have not spent much time there, but i
t looks promising.
==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 16:31:11 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Mike  
Subject:      Rome and the Roman army

 I have seen a 
common thread here in the lectures that I am curious about. Was
 it against some law to have the Roman army in Rome?  Any army in Rome? We have
 the following passages that sparked this question:

>The End of Republican Rome - Page 9 of 39 >Death of Gaius
 Gracchus
>Gaius' followers killed a consul's servant in a street fight. Senate issued >an
 emergency decree, the senatus consultum ultimum. This suspended due >process
 and yielded power to the consuls, allowing them to bring the army >into the
 city. It
 said, in effect, that the Senate would support any >actions taken by
 the consuls for the duration of the decree.
Was Rome not fortified? It sure saw more than its share of military invasions,
 especially from its own people.

>The End of Republican Rome
 - Page 14 of 39
>L. Cornelius Sulla

>He returned, with his army, to Italy. The Senate raised an army of 100,000,
>leavened by Marius' veterans. But it was commanded by Senators and they
>lacked skill and Sulla was a talented field commander.

>The End o
f Republican Rome - Page 18 of 39 >Pompey
>Gnaeus Pompeius was also a hero in the 70s. He was a much better general >than
 Crassus; in fact, if Pompey had not been overshadowed by Caesar, he >would have
 been much admired as a commander. He had defended t
he Senate >against a
 rebellion by Lepidus in 77 and against Sertorius in 72. Both >these men were
 somewhat in the mold of Sulla or Marius -- powerful generals >who ran afoul of
 the Senate and who resorted to rebellion.
>The Senate was nominally at the 
helm, but in fact Rome was prey to every
 successful general who >became disgruntled.
>In 72, Pompey returned to Italy -- with his army. He tactfully parked it >some
 distance from Rome, but he quite pointedly put set the winter camp >within an
 easy marc
h of the city. He then went to the Senate and expressed >his desire to
 run for consul. Pompey was too young to run for consul and >the Senate was
 disinclined to humor him. The year was 71 and Crassus was >returning (with his
 army) from the Spartacus re
volt. The two men met, >agreed to join their
 interests, and the Senate found itself faced with two >armies.
>Whereupon, Pompey was allowed to stand for consul. Not suprisingly, he won.
   Greek dis-unity of its poleis seems to be minor compared to the po
litcal
 turmoil of Rome. It is surprising that the Republic accomplished so much with
 this political system.

==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 18:53:37 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@
IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Teresa  
Subject:      Re: Rome

Darin expressed wonder at the extent to which the Romans incorporated Greek culture.  I, too, am impressed by this ongoing historical significance -- first the Macedonians and others in its E
mpire, then the Romans, next . . .

The Greek culture was indeed a rich one.  To come across literature and art the likes of which was developed by the Greeks surely must have impressed others from other cultures. 

One thing does confuse me a little abou
t this, and perhaps that is just because of my modern perspective, but why was there no bias or prejudice against foreign cultures?  We in America (perhaps a loud minority, but still . . .) seem to be very reluctant to incorporate anyone else's culture, l
et alone allow them to have it within our culture (even though many do, obviously).  Consider the "English as Official Language" movement -- back in the days of early Greece and Rome, the locals seemed very willing to take on new language, alphabet, and e
ven religion from other culture(s).

What was the perspective of the ancients in this regard?
==========================
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 19:31:31 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>F
rom:         Teresa  
Subject:      Re: Roman Constitution

At the risk of beating this Constitution issue to death, I want to respond to Linda's comments of 2/9 regarding the written laws.  Skip also responded on this point.

Laws do not a Constitution m
ake.  Indeed, while many laws were written and later overturned, the Constitution was not written, and the Constitution is what creates and controls the form of government and the powers granted to its bodies.   Laws are endlessly changeable, while Consti
tutions (at least in our society) are not, unless new forms take the place of the old.

It is also true that even if there had been a written Constitution, who had the power to enforce it?  Especially when the military leaders seized power backed by their
 loyal armies (which sort of constitutes an overthrow, right?) then there was no doubt about who was in charge and who had the power.  Certainly such a thing could happen Even In America if enough organized military force were brought to bear.
===========
===============
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:59:01 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Mike  
Subject:      Re: Rome

Teresa wrote:
>
>One thing does confuse me a little about th
is, and perhaps that is just
because of my modern perspective, but why was there no bias or prejudice
against foreign cultures?  We in America (perhaps a loud minority, but still
. . .) seem to be very reluctant to incorporate anyone else's culture, let
a
lone allow them to have it within our culture (even though many do,
obviously).  Consider the "English as Official Language" movement -- back in
the days of early Greece and Rome, the locals seemed very willing to take on
new language, alphabet, and even 
religion from other culture(s).
>
>What was the perspective of the ancients in this regard?
>
>
 Could it partly be due to economic survival? I believe that Skip mentioned
that the Greeks considered others barbarians if they did not speak Greek.
Did other
 less powerful/influential countries adopt "language, alphabet, and
even religion" to be more marketable? If you wanted to trade with Greece,
did it help to speak Greek? If you needed to write a treaty or contract with
Greece, did it help to use their alp
habet? I would believe that this was
true. The Greeks spread their culture over a very large area, it may have
been easier for the Romans to adopt some of Greeces influences, such as the
alphabet, than to start from scratch.

Mike
========================
==
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 17:50:02 GMT
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Cindy<>
Subject:      Re: Roman Rule - Threats

Linda T. writes:

>With regard to rule, wouldn't the sheer
 number of plebians verus the nubmer
>of patricians (or even patrician/plebians) have represented a significiant
>threat?

>I feel that you are absolutely right!  The patricians were a minority of the
people and since this was true they had to consider so
me of the rights and
privileges of the mass majority, the plebeians.  If they did not, the
plebeians could do more than just strike.  They could cause a major havoc in
Rome and this would weaken the area and its people in the eyes of other
nations.  Rome 
could not have this and strengthen its empire at the same time.

Cindy
==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:09:51 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Teresa  S
ubject:      Re: Roman Rule - Threats

Our discussions of the Pleb secession threats in order to gain =
concessions from Patricians reminds me to some extent of the founding of =
our American Constitution.

Under the Articles of Confederacy, our central g
overnment was very weak =
and could not really enforce any of its dicta.  With economic downturns =
after the Revolutionary War came great financial burdens on farmers, who =
were taxed in order to pay off the war effort.  The farmers rebelled and =
creat
ed great strife  within American factions.  The elites decided we =
needed a new form of government with stronger central powers, and so, =
after much debate and compromise, our U.S. Constitution was born.  The =
compromises in turn led to the Bill of Rig
hts.

Just thought I would add a sort of parallel from our own humble =
beginnings to the struggles of the Plebs.
==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:17:14 GMT
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101
@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Cindy<>
Subject:      The Roman Federation

2-11-96

I am still a little confused about something.  Why were the Greek communities
given differing degrees and responsibilities by Rome?  Was this because of the
number of peo
ple that lived in the communities?  Or maybe, it was the military
presence that was there?  I am confused about it because it doesn't seem fair
to me that while some were granted full Roman citizenship others were simply
protected by Roman military troops
 and still had to provide men for these same
troops.  Maybe somebody has some thoughts on this topic and it would be great
to hear about them.

Cindy
==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:38:59 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU
.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Rome Discussion

John M. wrote:
<snip>
>Romes goverment was vicious
>with enforcement of its laws and expected its provinces to
 comply as
>illustrated by the description of Aemilianus' action against Spain.

Scipio Aemilianus' action against Numantia was unusually severe, and rather
out of character for Rome.

>I don't want to continually draw comparisons to the 20th century but 
doesnt
>this remind you of our own political system with bribes, illegal
>contributions, kick backs to lobbyist...ad infinitum.

Yup. After studing history, the phrase "politics as usual" takes on added
depth of meaning!

[snip]
>Chambers states
>that Sen
ators were forebidden to be in busines yet the pulicani's often were
>more whealthy than the senators, what was the incentive to become a senator
>over a publicani other than polictical power?  Did prestige and social
>status have more glories than a weal
thy business man with enourmous wealth,
>land and luxuries? How did Senators earn money? Were they paid by the state.

Senators were not paid. Public servants drawing a salary is rather a modern
notion -- only commoners draw a paycheck. As for being a pub
lican, no Roman
aristocrat would for a moment consider such an alternative. Some were indeed
more wealthy than some senators, but the reverse was also true. In any case,
prestige and social status were indeed more important than mere cash.
Anyone, after a
ll, can earn money--it's no great trick. But only the elite
may rule. Only the elite (in Rome) are called to public service, to
sacrifice, and to glory. These things money cannot buy.

Now, if you and I would rather take the money, thanks very much, this 
only
proves that we are more fitted to be grocers than consuls. It is the
peculiar mythology of American democracy that we imagine everyone to be
equally suited to either destiny.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- sk
ip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:46:27 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Roman
 Constitution

Frank H. said:

[snip]
>There was however, a large number of
>property-less Roman citizens who, though not liable for service, were so
>employed.  Marius, who to meet the dangers of the Germans (104), enrolled
>these proletarians and they c
ontinued as a group to be used thereafter

The size and significance of this group varies greatly over the course of
the Republic. While it is true that there were large numbers of urban poor
to serve in the army by the end of the second century, one ough
t not suppose
that this was the case when Rome was fighting the Veii or the Sabines, three
hundred years earlier.

>We must remember, Land meant wealth and wealth meant political power.
>Soldiers respected their generals, not for their military skills

Mm
m, well, at least not entirely. Nevertheless, the common soldier needed to
believe his general would lead him to victory and so to safety. Let a
general lose too many times, and his soldiers will desert him. And, again, I
must stress that this picture is 
true for the armies of the late Republic,
but much less true of the citizen armies of earlier centuries (e.g., those
that fought Hannibal).

>That is what the Romans had.  The constantly "lost the battles but won the
>war."  Their losses at sea were equal
ly as bad; however, they were excellent
>learners and improvisors.  When they couldn't beat the navies they turned
>their navies into armies (putting the planks on the ships and sending their
>troops on board the enemy ships.) Scipio took Hannabal's tacti
cs and turned
>them against him in North Africa, where conceivably Hann. had the home field
>advantage (elephants).  I feel the Romans GREW into a fighting machine
>because of their ingenious Constitution that gave them the Time (hence
>manpower) necessar
y to learn from mistakes.

This is a good observation. Another way to say it is that Rome was so
successful because it learned how to wage war, even when it did not know how
to fight battles. Rome was a whole society engineered for warfare. So was
Sparta,
 but can you see the difference? In Sparta, the army was only a
narrow elite who exploited the rest of society so they could specialize in
combat. In Rome, every citizen was a soldier, and the system was designed to
keep the number of soldiers high and to
 keep them well-supplied.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:54:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <H
Y101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         John<>
Subject:      "Citizens of Rome"

One of the things I'm not sure about is when did someone become a Roman
Citizen? There are several refrences to the priveledges to a Roman citizen
and about how only landowners c
ould be a soldiers.(landowners had money and
could thus afford to arm themselves)As we have all read and most of us have
experinced, R.H.I.P. (rank has it's priveledges)and so do the wealthy. In
Rome the same thing...

Chad wrote;
<The Romans, on the othe
r
<hand, emphasized loyalty to the Republic (later the Empire). This loyalty could
<be shared by anyone who enjoyed the relative priviledges of Roman citizenship,
<even if they were far from Rome. To a Greek ship captain, his first loyalty
<would  be to h
is home city. But if his city was friendly to Rome, he would have
<as much or more loyalty to Rome as he would to a distant Greek city or league.

and Cindy wrote;
< I am confused about it because it doesn't seem fair
<to me that while some were granted f
ull Roman citizenship others were simply
<protected by Roman military troops and still had to provide men for these same
<troops.  Maybe somebody has some thoughts on this topic and it would be great
<to hear about them.

I realize that when Rome conquere
d a territory it sometimes granted
citizenship to some people, were these people the presiding land owners and
farmers or could the Romans tell a good Aristocrat from the commoner in any
society? I know that a general could give his men land in some cases
, but we
are back to chicken and egg theory. Could someone work really hard and buy
enough land to become a citizen.

The other response to Cindy's "it doesnt seem fair" is that it's not fair.
Never has been nor does it seem to be evolving that way. We ha
ve shows of
the aristocrats giving enough "freedom' to the commoners to appease them
into civility as was the case in "The Struggle of The Orders".
John 
==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 17:05:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDB
SU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Week 2 - the fall of the Republic

This week I want us to concentrate especially on the Roman Revolution --
from Tiberius Gracchu
s to the first Caesars, through Nero.

The principal question concerns the end of the Republic itself, why it
happened and how it happened. I'm particularly interested in examining the
effect of events and individuals on the final results; that is, to wha
t
degree the invention of the Roman Empire was the result of specific events
or specific individuals.

More broadly, we can look at the various stages in the Republic's fall: the
crises of the Gracchi, the age of Marius and Sulla and the Social War, the
F
irst Triumvirate, the Second Triumv�
�

ury. Art, philosophy, science, poetry,
religion, social and economic change, etc. Political narrative has dominated
the course so far -- that's ok and in fact is the way I've designed it --
but I want to leave the door open for folks to explore down some 
of the
side-alleys, too.

We'll spend this week on the Republic and early Empire. The week after,
we'll bring the classical world tumbling down and enter upon the Middle Ages.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@m
micron.net


==========================
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 17:17:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Rome, Week 1 - 
summary

We spent a good deal of time trying to figure out what was right with the
Republic -- the constitution, plebs vs plebians, and the Roman army. Those
are good topics and, as some have observed, are areas that were
interrelated. The Struggle of the
 Orders was concerned with constitutional
matters, but the tempo of its progress was dictated by military events.

What has always struck me is that the struggle between plebians and
patricians was settled just as Rome entered upon its greatest conflict, 
the
Punic Wars. The Struggle of the Orders by tradition ended in 287, and the
First Punic War began soon after that. And the Punic Wars fundamentally
changed the nature of the Roman Republic itself. The parallel between this
and the history of Athens is s
triking, for Athens likewise completed her
political development on the very eve of the Persian Wars.

The cultural development of Rome was touched upon. It's a matter of great
debate among historians as to the specifics of timing and so on, but Rome
inde
ed developed a passion for the Greeks in the 2nd century and after;
before this, Roman literature is almost non-existent.

I'll make a final point, though it's not one that came up in discussion. We
are fond of calling America a democracy, but in politica
l science terms we
are a republic. Our founding fathers were much more influenced by the Roman
Republic than by the democracy of Athens. Neither form and neither precedent
says much about "rights" or "freedom" -- that's our modern invention -- but
the bal
ance of powers in the Republic was regarded with favor and shows up
in our own Constitution (which we *did* write down!).

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         
Sun, 11 Feb 1996 20:57:15 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Mike  
Subject:      The Fall of the Republic

   What caused the Roman senate to resort to violence to meet its needs? I
n
494 B.C.E., according to Chambers, "The patricians ..........took an oath
that made it a religious crime to violate or injure the body of a tribune.
The sacrosanctity of the tribunes allowed them to interfere in any action,
since no one could lay hands 
on them." Between this time and 133 B.C.E. when
a group of senators killed Tiberius, who was a tribune, there are no violent
political acts reported in Chambers or the lectures. Did the Punic Wars keep
order among the political factions of the Republic?
 
  It is written in the Chambers text that the Romans "valued discipline,
obedience, and social cohesion." Yet they have an un-written constitution
that is influenced by social standing and the needs/wants of the wealthy.
These very same people come up wit
h an oath to protect the tribunes and then
they are the  ones who resort to murder to protect their own interests. Did
the constitution every benefit the common man?
==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:20:58 -0500
Reply-To:     HY
101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Linda T." <>
Subject:      Re: Rome and the Roman army

In a message dated 96-02-10 18:33:48 EST, Mike K. writes:

> I have seen a common thread here in the lectures th
at I am curious about.
>Was it against some law to have the Roman army in Rome?  Any army in Rome?
We
>have the following passages that sparked this question:

I was wondering if the army in Rome ws the "Senatorial army".  Page 14 of the
lecture "The End 
of Republican Rome" says "the Senatorial army met Sulla at
the Colline gate."  It also sounded as though armies were later restricted to
their provinces by a law enacted by Sulla.  Per a statement in the lecture
"Sulla's law prohibited a preconsul from br
inging his armies beyond the
limits of his province".  Apparently to do so was to cause war  (as Caesar
did).  This was intended to prevent the opportunity that Sulla had to attack
Rome with his army.  Hmm, sure didn't seem to me to have slowed anyone dow
n
in later years.
==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:38:06 -0500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Linda T." <>
Subject:      The Fall of The Republic

Man, did
 I have a terrible time trying follow (and understand) the switches
in power between the Senate and the military generals.  Wow, I think I need
to reread the material.

It makes sense, though, that with all the poverty caused by the wars, that
the common 
people would find a means to rise against their oppression.  The
means sincerely began in the form of the Gracchi brothers.

Tiberius and Gauis Gracchus were representatives of the common people.  They
gave them the inspiration to rise for the purpose of 
improving their
condition "raising the spectre of class warfare" (lecture pg 10).  They
exposed the strength of the Tribune and the potential weakness of the Senate.
 They also proved the success of violence.

I don't know that I believe it began here, bu
t the Republic's decline was
certainly influenced strongly by the exposure of these facts.
==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:26:02 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Fro
m:         Scott  <>
Subject:      Rome culture - Adding to Tereasa's comments

From: Teresa  
Subject:      Re: Rome
To: Multiple recipients of list HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>

<Darin expressed wonder at the extent to which the Romans incorporated =
<
Greek culture.  I, too, am impressed by this ongoing historical =
<significance -- first the Macedonians and others in its Empire, then the =
<<Romans, next . . .=20

<The Greek culture was indeed a rich one.  To come across literature and =
<art the like
s of which was developed by the Greeks surely must have =
<impressed others from other cultures. =20

<One thing does confuse me a little about this, and perhaps that is just =
<because of my modern perspective, but why was there no bias or prejudice =
<a
gainst foreign cultures?  We in America (perhaps a loud minority, but =
<still . . .) seem to be very reluctant to incorporate anyone else's =
<culture, let alone allow them to have it within our culture (even though =
<many do, obviously).  Consider the 
"English as Official Language" =
<movement -- back in the days of early Greece and Rome, the locals seemed =
<very willing to take on new language, alphabet, and even religion from =
<other culture(s).

<What was the perspective of the ancients in this re
gard?

I have also found it troubling how the Romans adapted other cultures.  They did
 incorperate their own twist.  The Roman gods were a good example of this:  the
 Romans changed their names and contrived a few to accomadate their head of
 household p
riests.

This flow of other cultures may have been a direct result of Rome allowing its
 conquered enemies to maintain their own culture.  As we have seen, this gave
 Rome loyal subjects each with their own self-styled culture.  Alexander the
 Great had t
he art of accepting other cultures mastered.  Why not try to follow
 his example given his success.
==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:59:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.E
DU>
From:         John<>
Subject:      Ruling Paradox

I find it was ironic that the same body that enforced the election of new
consuls each year saw did not see the significant impact it had on their
armimes in the field as Mike wrote below;

<But I als
o feel that this political body contributed to many of
<the armies failures. By electing consuls every year they were putting
<their armies at risk. It is rather hard to change loyalties in <mid-battle.
The other thing that did make the Roman army success
ful is <its ability to
adapt and learn from its failures. The whole point of <war is victory. If
you lose a few battles in the process, that is all <part of the game.

Yet, when there were generals who took command for longer than the regular
term(by forc
e), they were in charge of powerful armies. Unfortunately when
these times did occur it was for the benefit of the ruler not the benefit of
the Roman Empire, changing the rules as they saw fit to prevent their power
and rule from being ursurped(with Pompe
y and Crassus seeming to be the
exception). The other senators were too caught up in their own plans and
designs or too paranoid to unite their strenghts and elect a long term
consul. In the end, the system that was set up to prevent too much power
being 
harnessed by one man seemed to be a weak link in their drive for
power. Had they seen the error of their ways and legally changed the term of
the consuls, their out come in wars would have been more favorable to the
Empire. This is an area that I believe 
where they failed to learn fom its
failures. But, then again, this is history for us.
John 
                                  \|/
                                 (O O)
==========================oO0==(_)==0Oo===============================
===============
=============
==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:01:12 -0800
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From: 
Subject:      [Fwd: Greece vs. Rome]


Regarding Frank 's post that the G
reeks were actually bad and the Romans
were not, I disagree with this post.  On the first page of chapter 4 in the
text p.89 It reads as follows, 'And from Rome's earliest days as a republic,
the theme of its history was conquest and domination.'
  The Ro
mans did have brilliant political strategies, but these were not
strategies meant to enlighten the people and create harmony.  These
strategies were to maintain military and political control of the people.  A
Roman citizen is more likely to remain loyal 
to Rome than a citizen of an
'annexed' country which no longer exists but was absorbed by the Roman
Republic.  They made these people new Roman citizens keeping them under
control.  This is a better strategy than the Greek's strategy of enslaving
the peop
le that they conquered.
     I maintain that neither society was completely terrible, they both had
their good points and neither was a society without good contributions.  The
Greeks had contributions from Sophocles and Pythagorus but they also dealt
wit
h tyrants like Pisistratus and the problem with ostracism.   The Romans
contributed with strong family structure and writers like Plautus and
Terance.  The corrupt tax collectors and governors, and the ruthless leaders
like Sulla who 'to his enemies he wa
s pitiless, and his executions of Roman
citizens were horrifying...' Text p.105. were some unfavorable Roman
contributions.
I too had stereotyped the Greeks and Romans before studying their history but
have since learned that Greeks were not any better or
 worse than the Romans.

==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:00:22 -0800
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Cliff 
Subject:      Rome Culture

I do not find it so 
dufficult to accept Rome's absorbtion of other
cultures.  It has been said that America has a difficult time accepting other
cultures but I have found America to be very accepting.  What is America
after all?  America was once considered (and may still be
) the "melting pot"
of the world.  Almost anyone can move here and make it in this society and
often without an overwhelming amount of adaptation.  Native Mexicans can come
to Idaho and find American communities where the can buy Mexican food, speak
the M
exican language and maintain their traditions.  There is "Little Italy"
in New York City and "Holland Michigan" and "China Town" in California just
to name a few.
        I lived in Europe for six years and did extensive traveling across
the continent.  I
f you walk into a store in Germany you can rarely speak
English or French and get service yet I have seen people walk into a shop in
the mall, speak Spanish and get exactly what they came in for.  In Germany,
if you are an American and own a car you have 
to use an American liscence
plate which is very different than theirs.  The Europeans, I would think,
would have a harder time relating to the Romans in this respect than we
should.
        I think that the Romans were actually right to incorperate otherc
ultures into their own.  The best thing that we can do as citizens of a
society now (and probably back then too) is to examine other cultures and
incorporate the genius in them into our own lives and cultures, thus
improving and evolvling as a society.
==
========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:48:24 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Scott  <>
Subject:      Dangerous shift in makeup of Army

Seems there was a fundm
ental shift in who the soldiers where loyal to after
 Marius abolished the requirement that a soldier had to own at least a modest
 amount of property.  This changed the makeup of the army to mostly poor men who
 served their commander(Chamber 104.)

This
 was a very dangerous change for the Republic.  Now the commander, not the
 Republic, had the loyality of the men.  This set the stage for the forced
 dictatorships that were to follow.
==========================
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:58:01 -0
500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Linda T." <>
Subject:      The Meditations of Marcus A. Antoninus

I read the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.  In it, is seemed as
though 
Marc Antony was reflecting back on the burden and the blessing of his
position and on mistaken choices he had made.  I only think this because of
the final line.   I was once a fortunate man, but I lost it, I know not how.
 But fortunate means that a man 
has assigned to himself a good fortune: and a
good fortune is good disposition of the soul, good emotions, good actions.
 I also wonder this due to the excesses he fell to during his rule (per the
Chamber s book) and perhaps the love of Cleopatra that cos
t him his rule and
his life.

The text of the Meditations seemed to me to reflect what he considered to
have been a better choice of ideals to have embraced.  It would have been
these ideals that could have upheld the Republic.

1)      A person s positio
n in life was determined by destiny.   That which
happens to every man is fixed in a manner for him suitably to his destiny.

2)      The subordination of individuals for the better of the whole.
  Accordingly it has made the inferior things for the sake 
of the superior,
and it has fitted the superior to one another.  Thou seest how it has
subordinated, co-ordinated and assigned to everthing its proper portion, and
has brought into concord with one another the things which are the best.

2)      Individua
l sacrifice for the good of the whole.   And so accept everythi
ng
which happens, even if it seems disagreeable, because it leads to this, to
the health of the universe."

On a separate issue, I m slightly confused.  Were these supposed to be the
words of
 Marc Antony himself?  If so, why would it be written in 167AD when
Marc Antony died in 30 BC?

Linda 
==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:02:28 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.ID
BSU.EDU>
From:         Jade 
Subject:      Education

        One of the things mentioned in the reading was how Cornelia,
Scipio's widow, was "a woman of high education" (Chabner, p. 100). What in
ancient Rome was considered high education and how was it
 obtained? In a
culture where women had there place, why or how was she to achieve such a
distinction? Did she only become highly educated as a result of being
married to Scipio? If so, were all wives of such persons entitled to such an
education? This ra
ises the even bigger question of education itself. Were
there "teachers" around who educated these people? Was education compulsory
or was it all on a who can afford how much basis? And what constituted being
highly educated during that time. They certain
ly weren't responsible for
understanding germ theory or kinetic molecular theory.
        Just some questions that have arisen that don't seem to be addressed
in the text.
==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:02:31 MST
Reply-To:   
  HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Mike  <>
Subject:      Fall of the Republic

   Was the Roman Republic a catch-22 situation? According to the Chambers text,
(pg. 89)
"And from Rome's earliest days 
as a Republic, the theme of its history was
conquest and domination. The result was the creation of a society that was
primarily a military machine." The Republic was run by the consuls, who were
officers from the Roman army. They were "the supreme civil 
and military
magistrates." (Chambers pg.92)

  Throughout all of the readings, the theme's are all the same, The republic
revolves around the military. Yet the lecture has the following;
(Julio-Claudian Emperors - Page 27 of 27) "This year revealed for al
l to see
that Augustus had failed in one critical respect: he had not removed the army
from Roman politics completely."

   The military is the Republic, but the Republic failed because of the
military. This may be too general, but it seems to be the situ
ation.

Mike
==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:19:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Looking for
 reasons Rome was successful in conquering her
              neighbors

>The Roman republic was a culture with deep military roots.  Voting in the two
> consuls annually by the army with the power to command troops formed many of
> the polical battles dur
ing the expansion.  Giving these politicians 20,000 men
> to carry out their campaign promises is part of expansion politics that helped
> fueled the wars.

I would not make too much of this. A consul served only one year, which is
scarcely enough time to
 carry out much of a career. Moreover, the theatre of
the war was determined not by the consul but by the Senate. The consul only
chose the battlefield. Once the Republic began to fall apart, this changed,
but when the Republic was healthy, a consul was n
ot a demagogue.

==============================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net
==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:26:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sen
der:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Rome

Teresa said:
>One thing does confuse me a little about this, and perhaps that is just
because of my modern perspective, but why was ther
e no bias or prejudice
against foreign cultures?  We in America (perhaps a loud minority, but still
. . .) seem to be very reluctant to incorporate anyone else's culture, let
alone allow them to have it within our culture (even though many do,
obviously).
  Consider the "English as Official Language" movement -- back in
the days of early Greece and Rome, the locals seemed very willing to take on
new language, alphabet, and even religion from other culture(s).
>
>What was the perspective of the ancients in 
this regard?

There was indeed bias, especially among the Greeks. Remember, Aristotle
defined most foreigners as being fit only for slavery. And the Greeks
defined as barbarian anyone who did not speak Greek. This did not prevent
cultural borrowing, but i
t did very much condition relationships between
individuals and states.

The Romans were less insular. While they were chary of citizenship for
foreigners, and believed deeply that the very best sort of human was one
born in Rome, nevertheless, they showe
d great tolerance for local cultures
as they expanded and conquered. They allowed local peoples to keep their
gods, their customs, and even their governments, so long as they obeyed
Roman law and paid their taxes. This is a cosmopolitan attitude rarely fo
und
among the Greeks.

==============================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net
==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:32:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.ED
U>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: The Roman Federation

Cindy said,
>
>I am still a little confused about something.  Why were the Greek communities
>given differing degr
ees and responsibilities by Rome?  Was this because of the
>number of people that lived in the communities?  Or maybe, it was the military
>presence that was there?  I am confused about it because it doesn't seem fair
>to me that while some were granted f
ull Roman citizenship others were simply
>protected by Roman military troops and still had to provide men for these same
>troops.  Maybe somebody has some thoughts on this topic and it would be great
>to hear about them.

Not only the Greek communities, b
ut all those cities and tribes that came
under Roman rule experienced varying treatment. The Romans worked out a
fairly sophisticated alliance system during the years when they were
expanded through Italy. They allowed some cities to become fully Roman --

all their citizens were Roman citizens. They allowed others only to be Roman
allies, enjoying the protection of Rome and at the same time liable to Roman
taxes and military levies. Still others became _foederati_, which might best
be translated as tribut
aries. These paid annual amounts of money for the
privilege of not being invaded by Roman armies. In addition, within any of
these areas, an individual or a family might be granted the boon of Roman
citizenship. Oh, and there were also colonies, which wer
e usually made up of
veterans of wars, and which enjoyed Roman citizenship.

In all cases, the status depended on the service, or perceived service, that
city or tribe or individual had rendered to the Roman state. This was a
powerful incentive, especiall
y during the Italian expansion. A city that
betrayed its allies and went over to Rome could hope to be richly rewarded
by a grateful Roman Senate.
==============================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@
mmicron.net

==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:02:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      New Rome links 
in the Library

I've added six or eight new links in the Rome section of the Library. You
might find one or more of them worth a visit.
==============================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:08:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: "Citizens of Rome"

Jo
hn M. said,
>One of the things I'm not sure about is when did someone become a Roman
>Citizen? There are several refrences to the priveledges to a Roman citizen
>and about how only landowners could be a soldiers.(landowners had money and
>could thus affor
d to arm themselves)As we have all read and most of us have
>experinced, R.H.I.P. (rank has it's priveledges)and so do the wealthy. In
>Rome the same thing...

The main way to become a Roman citizen was to be born one. Sometimes
everyone in a city might b
e granted citizenship out of gratitude for some
extraordinary service to the Roman state (this was rare). Sometimes
citizenship was granted to individuals for similar reasons. But extending
citizenship was always an event out of the ordinary and in specia
l
circumstances. There was no regular way, no set of procedures, as there is
in our country.

One of signs of political breakdown in the late Republic was the granting of
citizenship to entire peoples as a way to bid for support. This abuse was
repeated d
uring crises in the Imperial period. By the later Empire, Roman
citizenship had spread quite widely throughout the Empire.
==============================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net

===========
===============
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:18:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: The Fall of the Republic

Mike K. s
aid,
>   What caused the Roman senate to resort to violence to meet its needs? In

This is the signal question of the Roman Revolution. Why did the Romans,
famous for having avoided the endless civil wars that plagued other
city-states, at last fall prey 
to the same disease?

Beware of simple answers. After all, it took a hundred years for the
Republic to collapse, during which time conditions changed more than once.

>   It is written in the Chambers text that the Romans "valued discipline,
>obedience, a
nd social cohesion." Yet they have an un-written constitution
>that is influenced by social standing and the needs/wants of the wealthy.
>These very same people come up with an oath to protect the tribunes and then
>they are the  ones who resort to murder
 to protect their own interests. Did
>the constitution every benefit the common man?

That last question may have been only rhetorical, but I'll take it seriously
so I can make my point. Did the constitution ever benefit the common man?
Put that way, it's
 easy to answer: of course. At some time, the constitution
surely worked to benefit at least one commoner. (You have to be careful what
you say around here!)

Let's try it another way. In what ways did the Roman constitution benefit
the common people (tha
t is, the plebs) and in what way did it benefit the
patricians, perhaps to the detriment of the plebs?

And, even more interesting: in what ways did the patricians manage to rule
to their own advantage *despite* the formal provisions of the constitution?T
hat is, what informal methods and customs served to perpetuate patrician power?

Finally, is this the right question to ask? Is the Roman Revolution the
story of class struggle? Patricians vs plebians? Rich vs poor?

I invite responses to these.
=========
=====================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net

==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:23:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@I
DBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Rome and the Roman army

>In a message dated 96-02-10 18:33:48 EST, Mike K. writes:
>
>> I have seen a common thread here in the lectures that I am curious about.
>>Wa
s it against some law to have the Roman army in Rome?  Any army in Rome?
>We
>>have the following passages that sparked this question:

First, in response to Mike's question: yes there was indeed a law. No Roman
army was allowed within the city limits. Th
e Senate could invoke a special
law, the *senatus consultum ultimum*, and bring the troops in, but this was
a drastic measure, rather like calling in regular Army into an American city.

And next, in response to this from Linda T.,
>
>I was wondering if t
he army in Rome ws the "Senatorial army".  Page 14 of the
>lecture "The End of Republican Rome" says "the Senatorial army met Sulla at
>the Colline gate."  It also sounded as though armies were later restricted to
>their provinces by a law enacted by Sull
a.  Per a statement in the lecture
>"Sulla's law prohibited a preconsul from bringing his armies beyond the
>limits of his province".  Apparently to do so was to cause war  (as Caesar
>did).  This was intended to prevent the opportunity that Sulla had to 
attack
>Rome with his army.  Hmm, sure didn't seem to me to have slowed anyone down
>in later years.

>From the days of Marius there were armies that were raised by a consul or
proconsul that were outside the provenance of the Senate. These soldiers
were 
recruited by the general, paid by the general, and were answerable to
the general. These soldiers took an oath to defend the Senate and people of
Rome, but naturally *every* general claimed to be defending the Roman state,
even as he was attacking it.
===
===========================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net

==========================
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:32:00 MST
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <H
Y101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Ruling Paradox

John M. wrote,
>Yet, when there were generals who took command for longer than the regular
>term(by force), they were in charge of powerful armie
s. Unfortunately when
>these times did occur it was for the benefit of the ruler not the benefit of
>the Roman Empire, changing the rules as they saw fit to prevent their power
>and rule from being ursurped(with Pompey and Crassus seeming to be the
>excep
tion). The other senators were too caught up in their own plans and
>designs or too paranoid to unite their strenghts and elect a long term
>consul. In the end, the system that was set up to prevent too much power
>being harnessed by one man seemed to be 
a weak link in their drive for
>power. Had they seen the error of their ways and legally changed the term of
>the consuls, their out come in wars would have been more favorable to the
>Empire. This is an area that I believe where they failed to learn fom 
its
>failures. But, then again, this is history for us.

I want to clarify a point here. Consuls served one year only. That did not
change. On the other hand, Marius and others raised armies *on their own*.
They could of course keep these armies in the fi
eld as long as they could
continue to pay the soldiers.

What happened in practice is that certain great generals were so strong that
they all but demanded to be made consul, or else were so popular that they
easily could stand for election and win. Durin
g a crisis like the Social
Wars, it only made sense to keep re-electing Sulla, despite the danger of
granting him too much power. The Senate could not stop the rebels, and so it
could only hope a Sulla would remain loyal to the state.

When we get to Juli
us Caesar (an admirer and protege of Sulla), the
situation changes again. Once Caesar had eliminated all rivals and found
himself in sole possession of Rome, he had himself declared dictator,
following Sulla's example. Augustus, though, would not go so fa
r. Instead,
he had himself elected consul for something like twelve years running,
sometimes not even allowing a second person to serve (there were always two
consuls). He did this because the position of consul gave him the authority
to command the armie
s and appoint certain officials. By that time, of
course, the Republic was dead.

So, for most of the Republic's history, consuls really were public servants,
and the Senate had no reason to view them as a threat. The real threat came
from independent gen
erals. These men did hold consulships, but they held
other offices, too, so again the threat was not really the position or its
place within the constitution.
==============================
Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University
sknox@varney.idbsu.ed
u -or- skip@mmicron.net


==========================
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996 05:57:19 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Jeff < >
Subject:      Chariots, Castes 'n Cultivators
, and Chinese

Item Subject: cc:Mail Text
     OK, I won't push the Gladiator movie thing, but I am willing to try a
     Chariot ride down Capital Boulevard . . .Seriously, I wanted to share
     some info about other parts of the planet, during the turn
 from A.D.
     to B.C.  As I perused Dr. K's messages this a.m., this question seems
     to apply to other cultures, besides the Romans:

     "Is the Roman Revolution the story of class struggle? Patricians vs
     plebians? Rich vs poor?"

     As cra
ck open the dusty pages of some history books in the recesses of
     by book shelves-WAIT-since this is a Western Civ., class, "I adore
     these books and reference them often!"  I share the following:

     According to "The English, A History of Poli
tics and Society to 1760",
     A discussion percolates about a Roman Conquest of the territory as a
     casual "here we are" by the Romans:  ". . .the Roman legacy in Britain
     was a negligible one, . . .no . . .account in the . . .development of
   
  government and society in the British Isles . . .The Roman legions
     crossed the channels in  55-54 B.C. and attacked the native Celtic
     population originally to suit the vanity of Julius Caesar" (I found
     this odd, as the Chamber text says t
he was killed in 44 B.C.)
     " . . .the Roman conquest of Britain was never more than a military
     action."

     In a Rand McNally "Atlas of World History" the text illustrates what
     is happening in the Orient about this time.  Since the origins
 of
     Hinduism are obscure, the early Vedic religon can be traced to the
     Aryan people who conquered the Indus Valley in about 1000 B.C.  They
     slowly developed an organized theology in about 500 A.D.  During that
     time, a structure of clas
s and social organiztion is clear.

     The caste system is a people structure that divides into self
     contained and sealed groups.  "Womb to Tomb" would be a phrase that
     qualifies membership in these castes.  Originally, there were about
     f
our castes:  Warriors, Priests, Cultivators, and the Shudra(?) (do
     not know much about Shudra at this writing).  Throughout the Aryan
     expansion, sub-castes developed; facilitated by race divisions.  Due
     to divine responsibilities, the Pries
ts quickly assumed authority.

     This is another human example of categorizing and organizing a social
     structure though division by religous power.  It seems Romans were
     divided by the leadership and the values of a Republic.

     Other juic
y historical tidbits can be found the Chinese Han Dynasty,
     the longest lived of the Chinese Dynasties, reigned from A.D. 25-220.
     Great canals and roads were developed for military use, and created a
     cash economy and merchant class, because 
these could be used for trade
     routes.  Roots of the Home Shopping Network?

     Further reading on this culture discussed and Emperor Wu, 140-86 B.C.
     that made portions of land tax payable in grain, to offset a common
     revolt motivator.  Th
e commoners were appeased when this stock-piled
     grain was distributed during low food supply times.  Pretty smart I
     dare say . . .

     [Thank you for tuning in to Jeff's "Great Minutes in History".
     Next week we will see Jeff actually beco
me a Roman dissident and be
     ostracisized into the Roman Hills for 10 years with nothing but a
     toga. . .]

     Warm and Fuzzy Western Civ. Regards!

     Jeff, 
==========================
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:23:28 -0700
Reply-To:  
   HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Nancy < >
Subject:      The First Triumvite

Item Subject: cc:Mail Text
     The First Triumvite - consisting of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar -
     agreed to form a 
coalition to force the Senate to obey them.

     Neither Chambers (textbook) or the on-line lectures state the amount
     of time Pompey ruled Spain or Crassus ruled Syria (p.21 Lecture - The
     End of Republic Rome) and yet it specifies that Caesar h
ad Gaul for
     another five years.  Why only five years?  The Triumvite was in
     control and could have demanded any amount of time.  Is there a
     political strategy here that I'm not seeing?
==========================
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 19
96 09:41:10 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Scott  <>
Subject:      Proof of citizenship

From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MMICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: "Citizens of Rome"

<The 
main way to become a Roman citizen was to be born one. Sometimes
<everyone in a city might be granted citizenship out of gratitude for some
<extraordinary service to the Roman state (this was rare). Sometimes
<citizenship was granted to individuals for si
milar reasons. But extending
<citizenship was always an event out of the ordinary and in special
<circumstances. There was no regular way, no set of procedures, as there is
<in our country.
<
<One of signs of political breakdown in the late Republic was t
he granting of
<citizenship to entire peoples as a way to bid for support. This abuse was
<repeated during crises in the Imperial period. By the later Empire, Roman
<citizenship had spread quite widely throughout the Empire.


How do these people prove th
eir Roman citizen status?  Did they have "green
 cards", tatoos, weekly postings ...  Anyone have read anything about this?
==========================
==========================
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:23:18 -0700
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBS
U.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         Teresa  < >
Subject:      Re: The Fall of the Republic

It seems to me that, from the time of Sulla onward, the Senators became =
little more than pawns of the powerful military genera
ls.  Skip points =
out in his Conclusion - Failure of the Republic (The Roman Revolution p. =
38) that the failure of the Senate was a major factor in the demise of =
the Republic, and this is certainly clear to anyone following the =
constantly changing 
alliances of the Senators during this period.

Rather than wrest control back from the dictators, they merely went =
along with whoever had the most power at the moment.  For example, after =
J. Caesar's murder, Marc Antony steps forward to lead (without 
any legal =
standing or authority), and the Senators go along with his measures =
until Octavian appears with his father's army, and then suddenly the =
Senate declares Antony to be an outlaw!  Next thing we know, he becomes =
an ally of Octavian in formi
ng the Second Triumvirate and marries =
Octavian's sister, whereupon he and the other two triumvirs are granted =
consulships.  But wait--he gets too friendly with Egypt and once again =
becomes the enemy (although the Senators did stand by him at this =j
uncture).  I find this quite humerous, if not a little difficult to =
follow.

If the republican leadership had been stronger, perhaps this form of =
government could have lasted longer in spite of all the economic and =
social problems.  OTOH, something 
fundamental would have had to change =
in order to address the power of the military leaders and keep them in =
check.
==========================
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:23:58 -0500
Reply-To:     HY101 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       HY101
 <HY101@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
From:         "Linda T." <>
Subject:      Fall of the Republic

Dr. Knox asked <Finally, is this the right question to ask? Is the Roman
Revolution the
story of class struggle? Patricians vs plebians? Rich vs poor?>

I don't know 
that I believe that the Roman revolution was a story of class
struggle.  Instead many leaders responsible for the decline of the Republic
came to power by advocating the poor.  They gained extreme loyalties this
way.  It was the strength of these loyaltie
s that provided the ability for
the revolution.

For example, Tiberius and Gauis Grachus came to power by advocating the poor.
 Through them, the weaknesses of the Senate and the potential political power
of the military was revealed.  "As Roman conquests
 brought the state into
further wars, powerful generals appeared who did have the support of their
armies and used it to seize power" (Chamber 104)  Gauis Marius abolished the
requirement that soldiers had to own property.

I believe the struggle was over
 the question of power for deciding what was
best for Rome...who was the better ruler and what was the best kind of rule.
 The destruction came about as a result of inconsistency through changes in
power, division in loyalties, changes in style of rule an
d changes in the
rules themselves.

For example, Sulla acted under the belief that generals had too much power
through the loyalties of their armies.  Pompey and Crassus cancelled several
of Sulla's arrangements.  "Senators passed a decree establishing ma
rtial law
and ordering Pompey to command the armies of Rome against Caesar..condemning
the Republic to extinction in yet another civil war." (108)

Caesar made himself dictator increasing the number in the Senate so that
supporters could be included. "In 
the end his authoritarian behavior proved
unacceptable to the experienced politicians whom he need for his
administration...He rose to the absolute summit of Roman politics, but in
doing so he destroyed both the Roman Republic and himself". (110)  (Chambe
rs)
==========================
















�


�

/;
�


�/;
�
'
�/;
�


5

�

/;
�
G

�/;
�

�
X



f



w
�


�



�



�

-h�
�













�













�







0




A



�
P




b




s




�

�


a	c


�