It seems that Julius Caesar gets a bad rap in history. Most folks in the US have been taught that he was a proto-fascist figure, a menacing authoritarian dictator who destroyed Roman democracy and the Roman constitution. Most of these ideas come from the writings of ancient Roman historians, such as Cicero and Cato, men who were Caesar's contemporaries and who were violently opposed to his policies, due to their economic interests.
The truth of the matter is actually quite the reverse, as I learned in a book that I recently read, called "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome."
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Caesar.html
http://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Julius-Caesar-Peoples-History/dp/1565847970
In this book, Mr. Parenti casts light on this oft-discussed period of world history. The most important thing to realize about ancient Rome, Mr. Parenti points out, is that it was rife with rampant class warfare, between the Patricians and the Plebeians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebeian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrician_(ancient_Rome)
PUNIC WAR ORIGINS
This rampant class warfare, which became more intense with each passing decade, had its origins in the Punic Wars, the epic struggle that Latin Rome fought against Semitic Carthage and its greatest general, Hannibal, in the Western Mediteranean.
Most of the folks living among Rome's fabled Seven Hills were poor, but everybody was a free-man, could vote in elections, owned their own small farm with a thatched roof hut, with their own animals and vegetable gardens and the like. Kind of like Walnut-Grove, on Little House on the Prairie.
In any event, as Rome's security was threatened by Carthage, many of the lower-class landowning men went to serve in the Legions to fight Hannibal. This was their duty under the Constitution. It was felt that landowning men would be more responsible, would have more to lose if the state was overthrown, and further, would be able to pay for their own military equipment. It really didn't effect Roman warmaking, because during this period of time, the vast majority of folks owned their own home.
As such, these common-folk Legionaries were gone for many years. While they were gone, many of the wealthy Patrician families used questionable legal procedures to gain legal title to the land of long-gone Plebeian soldiers. When these folks returned from the war, they found their family farm and tiny landholdings gone. They had been absorbed into large mega-estates, plantations, owned by an increasingly rich Patrician elite.
To make matters worse, the Roman Patricians imported a large number of foreign, non-Latin slaves from Rome's newly conquered provinces. These slaves worked for little, had no rights, and were much easier for the Patricians to handle than free-born Roman commoners. As such, when the soldiers returned they not only found that their lands were confiscated, but they also found themselves without work and no way to support their families. They and their families were forced to move to the city of Rome, where many found themselves unemployed and destitute.
During this time, Rome had a quadracameral legislature, but for all intents and purposes, it operated in a bicameral manner (2 out of the four legislative bodies had very little power and rarely met).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_constitution.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic
It had the Senate, or upper house, where only Patricians could run for office and serve. That being said, all could vote in a Senatorial election, Patrician and Plebe alike. The second, lower chamber of the legislature was called the Popular Assembly. The highest committee of this was called the Plebeian Council. This second house represented the interests of the common folks, and only they could vote in it. After numerous civil wars and instances of class warfare, the Plebeian Council acquired pre-eminance of place in the Roman Republic, which made sense, since it represented 95 percent of the people (the Plebes). This council and the person who headed it, the Tribune, had the ability to veto anything that the Senate or any other branch of the Roman Government proposed. They could also enact laws that were universally binding, even upon the Patricians.
This was potentially dangerous for the Patrician class. However, the Patricians were able to control this council through bribes and campaign contributions, ensuring that no laws that came out of it could impact their collective, aristocratic class interests.
THE GRACCHI
In any event, in 122/123 BC, a progressive war veteran named Tiberius Gracchus won a spot as Tribune. He passed laws redistributing land back to the unemployed Plebeian masses, taking back the land that had been wrongly stolen from them when they were off fighting Hannibal, which in reality, meant that they were protecting the economic assets of the Patrician class from foreign confiscation. He also called for all of Rome's slaves to be freed and sent back to their country of origin (they had only been there for a generation and they wanted to go back home, whether that was to Gaul, Numidia, Libya or the Balkans).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus
These reforms were popular and the Senate, filled with Patrician intrigue, maneuvered to protect their class interests. They tried to pass resolutions declaring Tiberius an outlaw. They formed a new political faction, called the Optimates, which was dedicated to supressing Plebeian calls for a more equitable and just republic. After much legal and political wrangling, the Optimate Patricians had had enough. They conspired with a group of slaves and had Tiberius Gracchus and his supporters murdered in a massive purge. Such were the passions of concentrated wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates
The Optimates were opposed by the Populare faction, which supported the rights of the Plebeians and promoted the abolition of slavery, because it took jobs away from free citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populares
A few years later, Tiberius Gracchus' younger brother, Gaius Gracchus, also a hero of the Populare faction, won election to the Tribunate, head of the Popular Assembly. He, too, tried to pass progressive legislation that helped the poor. He also tried to reform the Roman judicial system, which was seeen as corrupt and subject to abuse at the hands of the literate Patricians who often held the key posts and officer positions. He was very popular and the masses supported him. The Patricians had no way of defeating him, because he took extra safeguards for his personal safety and was relentless in his prosecution of just and equitable laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Gracchus
However, identity politics became his undoing. Eventually, Gaius Gracchus proposed universal Roman citizenship for all of Italy. At this time, most of Italy spoke a variant of Latin, but was not Roman. They had been beaten by Rome in various wars and were subject to Rome, but not equal. They were, in effect, second-class citizens. This proposal proved to be Gaius Gracchus' undoing.
The Roman Plebeians were worked into a xenophobic frenzy and refused to share equal political rights with other Italians, believing that they were culturally inferior. These ignorant, biased beliefs were stoked by the Patrician order, represented in the Optimate Faction, because they saw this as a means of deposing the once invinceable Gaius Gracchus.
This was risky, because the Patricians were willing to alienate all of the conquered non-Roman subjects of Rome, in order to suppress domestic upheaval within the "homeland" of Rome proper. This resort to ethnic/religious/linguistic "identity politics" would be studied by elites for millenia. It was the first recorded case in history of a "peasant movement" organized along class-lines, being defeated by its own ethnic prejudice, which served to divide them and distract them from their objective economic, political and legal goals.
Eventually, a sufficient number of Plebeians had turned on Gaius Gracchus, due to "identity politics" and his power weakened. One day he and his core group of supporters were rounded up an murdered by the Optimates, and a newly won-over group of Plebeian xenophobes. And so came to a close Rome's brief 40 year fling with social justice.
THE SOCIAL WARS & SPARTACUS
The Roman Patrician class used the defeat of Gaius Gracchus as a pretext to revoke many of the land reform laws passed by him and his older brother, Tiberius Gracchus. The Plebeians, so obsessed with not sharing equal rights with other non-Roman Latins, were effectively distracted and did nothing.
That being said, the rest of Italy rose up in rebellion against Rome. Stirred by the Civil Rights promises of Tiberius Gracchus, they raised armies and marched on Rome in a bloody civil war known to history as the Social War. of 91-88 B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC)
As a result of this war, the Patricians were forced to grant citizenship to the wealthiest and most powerful members of the various non-Roman Italian cities. However, they did not grant citizenship to the common people of said cities. Instead, the Romans gave this power (to grant common folks full-Roman citizenship) to the elites of these various cities, who would use the "franchise" as a means of imposing social order on the masses. As such, full civil rights were granted only to the elite, wealthy members of the ethnic/linguistic "other." These elites, in turn, would manage members of their own respective ethnic/linguistic tribe in the best interests of Rome. It was an effective strategy of co-optation and divide-and-conquer, one that would be repeated by Europeans in their attempts to colonize conquered peoples, for the next 2,000 years.
In any event, over the next 30 years, the Plebeians gradually realized they had been hoodwinked and there was constant agitation against the Patrician Order. Many Roman Patricians had come to sympathize with the Plebeians and the slowly increasing middle class growing in their midst. As such, an increasing number of Patricians were coming to lead the Populare faction and were using it as an instrument for political control.
There were numerous riots and slave insurections from 88 BC to 59 B.C., the year Julius Caesar formed the First Triumverate with Pompey and Crassus. All of this internal class-warfare served to increase the power of the Patrician class and their Optimate Party supporters.
In order to quell civil disobedience, the Optimates used increasing brutality and violence against the Populare faction and the Plebeians. All of this was supported and condoned by the wealthy Roman Patrician class, particularly by people such as Cato and Cicero. They were fine with suspending many of the rights and liberties of the Roman Constitution, in order to preserve their class position. They even gave numerous speeches saying Rome had "had enough freedom. A time of order has arrived." (This is important, because Cato and Cicero were giant hypocrites and would later rhetorically fashion their opposition to Caesar in the language of "democracy" and "freedom," which was hypocritical, given their prior, ecstatic approval of authoritarian, anti-democratic laws and measures aimed at restricting the Plebeians).
In any event, as social tensions increased and repression increased accordingly, many spontaneous insurections transpired across the land. Among these insurrections was the famous, almost successful one launched by Spartacus in what is known as the Third Servile War of 72-71 B.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War
THE OPTIMATE DICTATOR: SULLA
As internal tension increased, the Optimate class gained greater political control over Italy. They had numerous dictators appointed, some of whom served for life, such as Sulla. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla
Sulla served as Chief Executive of Rome from 88 B.C. until 80 B.C., having successive titles of Consul and Dictator. Again, he was widely supported by the Patrician class. While he was away fighting a battle, many of the poor in Rome rose-up, Paris Commune-style, and tried to re-assert their rights. They were brutally put down. When Sulla returned he reformed the Roman Constitution and removed all of the remaining rights allowed to the Plebeian class under the law. He effectively destroyed Roman Democracy and put the Republic in the hands of a small group of elite, wealthy patricians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reforms_of_Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla
To ensure that there was no domestic opposition, he engaged in what history has called "proscriptions," a wide campaign in which all enemies of the state were put on a list. They were rounded up, along with their families and notable friends, and put to death. Thousands were executed, many without cause or justification.
THE RISE OF GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR
What most school textbook histories of Rome fail to mention is that when Julius Caesar began his political rise, it was on the basis of his vocal, studied opposition to the Optimate Party and Patrician Class. He called for redistribution of land back to the Plebeians, in the manner of the Gracchi. He called for greater Plebeian involvement in government and politics and careers open to merit. He called for the abolition of slavery and the abolition of debts, which were used by the Patricians to keep thousands of Plebeians in a state of formal dependance upon them, a situation through which they extracted numerous immoral concessions (such as sexual rights to a man's wife or daughters).
When Caesar won the hearts and minds of the Roman People through his brilliant campaign in Gaul, the Optimate class was terrified. They not only had a Left-Wing political radical in the fashion of the Gracchi to contend with, but one who was a certified military genius as well. Ever the consumate politician, Caesar had cleverly cultivated the support of both the Legions and the Proletariot, and as such, there was little the Patricians could do to oppose him. The Patricians, depserate, called upon Caesar's good friend and son-in law (although he was much older), Gnaius Pompey, to oppose Caesar and the rabble that supported him.
While Caesar was in Gaul, Pompey used what legions remained with him, to put down civil insurrections in Rome proper, and keep the people subdued, lest they rise up and support Caesar on his return from Gaul. The people cried out to Caesar for help. The Constitution had been suspended by Pompey and he had further degraded what few democratic laws were left.
Caesar marched across the Rubicon, into Italy, and began the great Roman Civil War. His supporters were the poor and destitute, the forgotten and the weak. Pompey was supported by the rich and the privileged, the greedy and the selfish.
With the coming, rapid approach of Caesar along the Via Appia, the greatest military genius the ancient world had seen since the death of Alexander the Great, a great terror and trembling struck the hearts of the Optimate faction and Patrician class. Not only did he have the support of the military, but of the poor as well. The wealthy were outflanked by both the army and the rabble. They were in dire straights and they needed to find a way to discredit Caesar among the multitude.
In what was either the greatest miracle or most cynical act of political hypocrisy the world had yet known, the Optimate Party had a total "change of heart." Whereas under Sulla, Optimates like Cato and Cicero had loudly proclaimed the death of the Republic, and tried to kill democracy because they thought the poor rabble, the majority, had too many rights, with the coming of Caesar they suddenly and magically embraced democracy.
Moved by this sudden and radical "change of heart" the Optimates, who were once Rome's greatest opponents of democracy, soon began to espouse pro-democratic sentiments! They gave speech after speech, warning that Caesar would "destroy the Republic," that Caesar was an "enemy of freedom," and a "threat to Roman liberties..."
This, of course, was blatent hypocrisy. The Optimates had destroyed Roman democracy years ago. They just wanted to find a popular rhetorical/philosophical theme/ideology with which to oppose Caesar on grounds potentially popular with the common folk (the very common folk they had previously exploited and oppressed).
But it did not work. The Roman Plebeian class had been awakened and they would not be fooled by Patrician/Optimate lies any longer. They called the bluff of the Optimate class and openly sided with Caesar. Cato and Cicero were called-out as hypocrites. Pompey and his cronies fled from Italy and were defeated in Greece by Caesar, who ruthlessly pursued them. Pompey abandoned his armies and fled to Egypt, where he was killed under the secret instructions of the Greek/Hellenistic Pharoah, Ptolemy. Caesar arrived and had an illustrious love-affair with Cleopatra. The rest is history.
When Caesar was triumphant and came back to Rome as a hero, he was proclaimed dictator for life. The Romans felt this was needed as there were still many Optimate factions plotting the downfall of the republic and the new, progressive legislation proposed and enacted by Caesar and his Populare party.
The conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar on the Ides of March was not the product of secret, pro-democratic vanguard of"freedom fighters" who sought to protect liberty and freedom, but a last-ditch effort of the wealthiest members of Rome's Patrician class to oppose Caesar's planned economic and constitutional reforms. They opposed these reforms because they had the most to lose, both politically and economically. It had nothing to do with "democracy" or the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reforms_of_Julius_Caesar
Brutus, who plunged the deadly knife into the back of Caesar in front of the statue of Pompey, actually had the most to lose on a personal level. Caesar planned to abolish all private Plebeian debts and Brutus' family made most of its money through a primitive Roman form of banking and money lending. Had these debts been cancelled, Brutus' family would have lost millions and they would have been reduced to middle class status. This was patently intolerable for a Patrician like Brutus. As such, a conspiracy to murder a democratically elected head of state was perfectly justifiable for a man such as Brutus, because such a leader threatened his class interests.
In many ways, the motives and circumstances were similar to John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was seen as a warlord, a man who was freeing the slaves, a man who threatened the economic interests of the most powerful, parochial families in the American South. Southern elites were always sympathetic to Brutus and Booth was as well. I was often confused by this, as a kid, because I had been taught that Caesar was evil and Lincoln was good. I thought the analogy was preposterous. The more I learn, though, the more I realize that the analogy was apt. The only thing is, Lincoln was good and perhaps, Caesar was good, too.
------------------
Much of our problems regarding the interpretation of the "fall of the Roman Republic" are due to the fact that our written histories of the era have come down to us from very biased, Patrician sources, namely, Cato and Cicero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero
These above links on wiki seem biased, as well. Mr. Parenti, who wrote the book, "The Assassination of Julius Caesar," mentioned above, gives a wonderful historical account of the two of them, one that flatly contradicts the established, status-quo interpretations of those famous historical events.
Parenti shows us that Cicero and Cato are not what most histories have portrayed them as, these histories having been written by self-interested wealthy, literate Roman elites who had an interest in making Cato and Cicero look good. Cicero and Cato were wealthy oligarchs who opposed Caesar, not because he threatened democracy. Indeed, Cato and Cicero had already played a strong role in destroying Roman democracy to advance the interests of the Patrician/Optimate faction. No. Cato and Cicero really opposed Caesar, it seems, because Caesar advanced the interests of the common people.
Is there any wonder, then, why the Cato Institute, one of the most right-wing, pro-aristocracy think tanks in the country is named after Cato?
The interests of the Optimate Class have existed since the dawn of time and they continue to exist in our own time. Cato is their greatest champion. Perhaps they, like Parenti, know the truth of the matter?
Caesar's opponents were the neocons of their time and were dedicated to archaic republican procedures, not because of their love of freedom and democracy, but because they could use these tools to hoodwink the people (under the sham, rhetorical cover of "democracy" and "freedom") and use them as an instrument through which to deprive them of their actual rights. Caesar, in contrast, was a populist army general, a "man of the people" in the style of Hugo Chavez or Andrew Jackson.
THE EMPIRE
The Patricians did much to preserve the corrupt and plutocratic Republic which made them rich. However, by the time of the Empire, established by Caesar's adopted son, Octavian (later named Caesar Augustus), the old Patrician class started to fade away. The Roman Middle class, or Equestrian Order, began to arise out of the old proletarian Plebeian order. Wealth became more diffused throughout society, for at least 200 years and the imbalances of wealth and status that had marked the republican period no longer marked the Roman state. Citizenship was granted to all, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
That being said, a constant state of war and conquest served to militarize Rome and remove whatever pillars of democracy remained. In this sense, Caesar failed Rome by perpetuating and reinvigorating its dependence upon foreign conquest and foreign oppression. Even if the Plebeians of Rome were freed, they would never be able to advance their own interests. Distracted by circuses and games in later years, and the glorious drama of foreign wars, they lost their potency as a political force within Rome and new aristocracies and cabals of ruthless Praetorian officers came to replace the Patrician cabals of the late Republic.
Even when you fight hard for the people, it seems, things still work to minimize those gains you worked to create. In time, all withers away and the old elitist orders re-emerge and re-assert themselves. At least this was the case with Rome.
If only we could find a way to create a permanent system of justice and tranquility, one in which the needs of the poor and the many are able to triumph over the interests of the rich and the few. If only we could find a way of doing this which does not repeat the failures of prior states and prior republics. If only we could do it, in our time, before it is too late...
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Frier
Tom Degan
pob2006
500words
john guzlowski
Bob Simpson
Salon.com
Comments
Yuppies in the East Village will go to great lengths to eat "genuine exotic delicacies," yet they fail to realize that the quest to appropriate and acquire these foods and ship them to the wealthy US elite involved a great deal of exploitation and destruction of local communities.
Victorian Brits loved Indian food, such as Chutney, Curry and varieties of Indian tea. Yet few asked what kind of bloodshed and attrocities were used to acquire these tasty, exotic delicacies.
One problem with our Liberal Elite is they often think that anti-cosmopolitan arguments are "ignorant" or "ethnocentric," when in fact they are based on economic observations of the lower orders of both the developed, imperial center, and undeveloped, oppressed, imperial periphery.
That these sentiments are later manipulated by the Imperial Elite is not so much a failing of the "ignorant mob," than it is a failure of the leftist, progressive elements in the developed world.
An interesting interview between Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now" and Slavoj Zizek deals with this, and is interesting.
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148648
a. Gold
b. Slaves (or, in the abstract, cheap, abundant, easily controlled labor)
c. Spices and exotic foods (this is often forgotten--the Spice trade was an integral aspect of the colonial movement).
These materialist quests were justified through ideological rhetoric, such as "white man's burden," or "Christian duty to proselytize." Today it is done under the rhetoric of "making the world safe for democracy and free trade." Its merely new rhetoric to justify the same old game.
The right wing automatically assumes that the Ivy League is "liberal and progressive." Many folks from said Establishment also buy into this. The problem is that, objectively speaking, they are not so much liberal as they are privileged. And privilege rarely translates into open mindedness on matters of class or economics. Certainly, there are a handful of popular public intellectuals at these universities that espouse progressive views. That being said, the vast majority of the Ivy League is geared toward perpetuating the class-interests of the American ruling class. The vast majority of Congress, the Supreme Court and the leading CEOs of corporate America come from this milieu. On the other hand, very few leaders of the Civil Rights movement came from the Ivy League. MLK,, Malcolm X, hell even the biggest supporters of Abolition and similar civil rights causes, or Labor Rights, very very few came from the Ivy League. That said, many Ivy Leaguers walk around thinking they are progressive, merely by way of their having gone to Harvard and/or Yale and perhaps because they went to a gay club and ate arugala.
On the other hand, very few middle class and/or working class folks think they are oppressed and/or in dire straights. They think it is "they" who rule the nation, despite their economic circumstances.
So we have an interesting situation where the rulers of the nation think they are progressive/revolutionary and the persecuted masses think they are bastions of power and conservative, pro-Establishment values.
Both sides being confused, the status quo is maintained. Very odd, I think...
Your major sounds very interesting. Any papers or articles or books you can suggest would be very appreciated.
One criticism, if I may, that I must make as a woman. Towards the beginning of the post, you write: "Most of the folks living among Rome's fabled Seven Hills were poor, but everybody was a free-man, could vote in elections, owned their own small farm with a thatched roof hut, with their own animals and vegetable gardens and the like. " You do talk about men, and there were some women who had some power in Roman culture, but unfortunately, they were not allowed to vote, and "free" for them was only in a sense, since they had to bow to custom and suppressive tradition. Though the Romans were much more fair to women than many other ancient cultures. That said, you may want to replace "folks" with "men" or "males". Sad to say....
One of the things discovered in archeology of Israel is that there are fluctuations -- periods of history with megamansions and legions of poor people living in hovels, followed by periods of great income equality. And then the cycle reverts.
Taking the long view, we're all just unlucky to be born at a time when the middle class is going "ByeBYE!"
That said, I will retain all archaic words pertaining to alcohol and liquor consumption. I have grown quite fond of refering to whiskey as a "spirit" and bars as "Public Houses." 8)
Especially about stuff from ancient Israel. The Xtian right often uses periods of inequality or abusive practices in/from ancient Judea as justification for policy today. Counter-Examples from the same land and time periods at issue would be very helpful. 8)
Anyone interested in this era should read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series. The astonishing depth of Ms. McCullough's knowledge about the time and the people involved make for some of the best historical fiction you'll ever read.
rated with thanks
"It was the first recorded case in history of a 'peasant movement' organized along class-lines, being defeated by its own ethnic prejudice, which served to divide them and distract them from their objective economic, political and legal goals."
I admired your restraint in not letting the other foot fall immediately after writing this.
Career of Empire by George Liska is very, very interesting on this point, as is War and Imperialism in Republian Rome if you want some more along these lines of comparison.
America does have some advantages, namely a tradition of liberty stronger than that in Republican Rome, the fact that generals are not acting politicians, and technology that means we might continually be able to avoid Malthus.
I can't be enthusiastic about Caesar, because Imperial Rome was a militarist autocracy, although I think Shakespeare got the motive right, which was envy, just like he got Cassius right too: lean and hungry look :) such men are dangerous. Ah.
But yes, the fall of the Republic was glorious, and may be our fate. When you look at the anti-Federalists, that is what they worried about, that there would be an oligarchy, and then a populist tyranny in response.
Maybe what we need is to make all corporations have workers own part of the company as a benefit of the corportate form. Not all of it, but some of it.
Abbott isn't exactly my favorite historian of the Roman Republic, but at least he's a historian, submerged in the history of Rome more or less from the cradle, in contrast to
Michel Parenti, a relatively high-concept anti-war activist and political "scientist" who has chosen a very peculiar hero for "democracy" in the dying Republic.
Parenti's relatively narrow focus and unfamiliarity with the deeper context of the period he describes produce ludicrous errors on virtually every page of his book, and Rw005g falls into the same sort of trap with assertions about "the first recorded case in history of a "peasant movement" organized along class-lines, being defeated by its own ethnic prejudice."
This trick was already familiar from the Peloponnesian Wars, when ethnic Ionians of so many micro-democracies allied themselves with the chthonic Ionians of the Athenian Empire against Sparta's Doric and ostensibly aristocratic coalition.
But those aristocratic Dorians were the very last hope for the survival of dozens of Ionian democracies, dissolved one after another into the now familiar (Athenian or American) partnership of imperial plutocrats and mobs masquerading as "populists."
What arguments of Parenti's, in particular, did you not agree with and why? Please buttress your criticisms with actual facts. Thanks.
Sparta had a quasi-socialist state that banned luxory and frivolity and put an emphasis on communal living. Yes, they were brutal to the Helots, which is inexcusable, but both Athens and Sparta had their good points and their bad points and none can come out of the Peleponesian War with any sense of "moral superiority." From what I remember of Thucydides, the Athens committed some pretty horrible attrocities, many more so than the Spartans. And said war was fought to minimize republican Athenian oppression, not Spartan militarism. The Spartans didn't have an empire like the Athenians did.
In any event, this is a debate for a different blog post.
From your description, Cato and Cicero were the Beck and Limbaugh or the McConnell and Boehner of their day -- only a helluva lot smarter. Can you imagine what they could have gotten away with if the owned Fux News?
You wrote: "But it did not work. The Roman Plebeian class had been awakened and they would not be fooled by Patrician/Optimate lies any longer." I wonder if the American Plebian class will ever awaken or if it will remain slavishly devoted to the concept of "capitalism uber alles".
Or as she may have said in ancient Rome, "Tu Betchus!" lol
A good Maureen Dowd editorial back during the McCain/Palin ticket had an entire Palin speech or something in latin. It was hillarious. (its where I got "tu betchus" from...lol)
Bottom line; there is nothing new under the sun, history repeats itself and, as ONL points out, everything runs in cycles.
Readers Digest condensed version of current events: Millions of disenfranchised middle class unemployed and underemployed whites will team up with millions of pissed off rednecks and millions of white young adults who lost good college scholarships because they were given to affirmative action low IQ savages.
The above mentioned group will awaken and go after the Zionist Jews, (and their liberal--and conservative-- white elitist stooges) the blacks and the illegals. The death toll will be in the millions, but things will be better when it's over.
The end.
Surely you see this? Culture, race and religion are all distractions to distract the common folks. What really matters are the shared economic, legal and political interests of all us Plebeians, regardless of ethnic, religious or racial identity.
Only God will ultimately deal with identity politics. After judgement, we'll have our shining city on a hill, but not before.
But I'm not trying to review Parenti's book here, on a venue where almost nobody has access to any sort of scholarly resources whatsoever, not even JSTOR, and what would be the point of a row of scholarly citations which nobody could check?
Rw005g tries to make up for this inaccessibility by simultaneously citing Wikipedia over and over while he also disses their main source (Abbott), and as much as I admire Wikipedia for making the rudiments of virtually everything accessible online, as a resource for reviewing classical scholarship, or Parenti's sensationalistic imitation of the same, it's hopelessly inadequate.
So except for one aside, I confined my criticism to Rw005g's absurd reflections of Parenti, like his assertion that period around the Social Wars was "the first recorded case in history of a "peasant movement" organized along class-lines, being defeated by its own ethnic prejudice," although Ionians and Dorians of all classes were ensnared by the same sort of ethnic cohesion throughout the Peloponnesian Wars two hundred years earlier.
But what's really offensive to me in this silly diary is the comparison between Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln, as if Abraham Lincold was a mercenary military dictator who marched into Washington and and permanently destroyed the last vestiges of civilian authority.
In 48 BCE Rome had somehow generated no less than 50 legions simultaneously in the field, and although I can't pretend to make the enormity of this force comprehensible to absolute beginners at Roman history, it's obvious to almost anybody who makes a serious study of the period that gangs of minimally organized and unemployed "proletarians" in the streets of Rome were almost entirely non-factors in deciding the outcome of a war between Caesar and Pompeius Magnus.
As an antidote to some much speculation about Caesar's "benign" motivation for provoking a full-scale civil war, it's probably worthwhile to consider at least one ancient source which is available online...
"Gnaeus Pompeius used to declare that since Caesar's own means were not sufficient to complete the works which he had planned, nor to do all that he had led the people to expect on his return, he desired a state of general unrest and turmoil.
3 Others say that he dreaded the necessity of rendering an account for what he had done in his first consulship contrary to the auspices and the laws, and regardless of vetoes; for Marcus Cato often declared, and took oath too, that he would impeach Caesar the moment he had disbanded his army. It was openly said too that if he was out of office on his return, he would be obliged, like Milo, to make his defence in a court hedged about by armed men.
4 The latter opinion is the more credible one in view of the assertion of Asinius Pollio, that when Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus saw his enemies slain or in flight, he said, word for word: "They would have it so. Even I, Gaius Caesar, after so many great deeds, should have been found guilty, if I had not turned to my army for help."
:)
-R-
He agrees that a a society with a economy based on war is bound to self destruct one way or another. To put it in a simple manner the more money spent destroying the less they are doing to build and the worse our quality of life will be. A successful economy needs to focus on things that improve the quality of life without destruction otherwise one way or another it will eventually collapse.
Johnson covers a lot of important details that the public should know about. He is also part of the American Empire Project. If you like Chomsky you'll probably also like Chalmers Johnson.
Am I the only one (at least on OS) who is struck by the similarity's of all this. Although RW is my favorite writer on OS, aside from myself, I am forced to agree with Jacob Freeze (although the sarcasm about RW's naivety is completely unwarranted). Wikipedia is not a source of anything except tabloid information much of it fashioned and refashioned by paid spooks of different political persuasions (Israel is actually offering courses to dedicated Zionists on how to rewrite Wikipedia). Having said that if one book, supplemented by Wikipedia, actually contains all the information conveyed in this post it is indeed a wonderful book. The formula used by the "nobility" to usurp Rome's Republic as the smoke from Carthage still billowed across the Mediterranean is the same one being used today to usurp the American one. As I have said repeatedly: the enemy is not an original thinker it is the first law of genetics that inbreeding causes mental deficiencies. The bad end that Cesar and all his works came to was preordained in the aeon of the dyeing God: Osiris, Adonis, Mithras, Jesus Christ, as the mystics are so fond of saying "as it is above so it is below". The new prophets have spoken and one of them said "times they are a changing". Excellent post my friend and historically accurate even without the use of JSTOR
I must ad a postscript to this comment in regards to another remark made by Jacob Freeze: "it's obvious to almost anybody who makes a serious study of the period that gangs of minimally organized and unemployed "proletarians" in the streets of Rome were almost entirely non-factors in deciding the outcome of a war between Caesar and Pompeius Magnus".
As RW would say: Huh? Spartacus came within a couple of bad decisions, as did Hannibal with a cobbled army of barbarians, of overthrowing Rome in height of its power with an army of slaves. This statement reeks of being the product of someone who has never been in a violent confrontation. Trained army's, training, training, it sounds like a little girl who has watched to much TV. The initiated know how stupid this statement really is, You cannot teach a man how to kill or how to die and how to fear neither, he is born knowing that. I will give you another movie since you seem to place such intellectual store in them, its called Naturel Born Killers. I didn't like the movie so much but the title just about says it all. Get it through your head one fucking time, all this shit National Geographic and its Military channels inculcates into your sensory saturated brain about Special Forces and Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger parachuting into your midst and killing everything they lay eyes on with magic bullets and knives given to them by Obi-Wan Kenobi the sacred drill instructor, is Hollywood. They are telling you resistance is futile and if you believe that then you will get just what you deserve you are a Naturel Born Helot. In fact speaking of the force they got that from "The Book of the Five Rings" written by the greatest of all the Samurai: Miyamoto Musashi. He trained himself and then wandered about Japan offering to fight all the champions of the various schools. In hundreds of fights to the death he was never defeated. Special forces were argued against prior to post WWII by most of the generals. You wanted your Naturel Born Killers like Sargent York and Audi Murphy fighting alongside your regular troops and inspiring them not sneaking around in covert actions. You could possibly argue that snipers require extensive training but then I will argue back that the greatest sniper of all Vassili Zaitsev once again trained himself hunting in the Ural mountains. If you must get your combat experience from movies I suggest you watch a new movie on HBO called "Fighting" it has the realest looking fight sequences short of the real thing I have ever seen on film. Take it from somebody who has been there and done that.
Who knows?
Equally mysterious is his silly assertion that my estimation of the relative power of 50 legions compared to disorganized mobs of the Roman Lumpenproletariat is based on movies.
"I will give you another movie since you seem to place such intellectual store in them..."
More than 2,000,000 civilians were slaughtered by armies in the field in Southeast Asia during and immediately after the War in Vietnam, and at least 5,000,000 inhabitants of Central Africa have been annihilated by an infinite variety of militias and the national armies of seven nations in the last ten years, and almost none of the eternal spectacle of soldiers slaughtering civilians was ever represented in movies.
But apart from all other civilian/miltary conflicts in all other times and places, the relative power of soldiers and civilians was sufficiently demonstrated in Rome itself for 300 years after Caesar and Pompeius contended at Pharsalus, while the Praetorian Guard dominated all other factors in Rome and set up or deposed a never-ending succession of Emperors.
Was Caligula selected and deposed by a mob, or acclaimed and later assassinated by the Guard? And likewise with the Emperors Nero, Galba, Vitellius, Titus, Nerva, Pertinax, Caracalla, and even that most exotic of all Emperors, Elagabalus.
Judging by the relative number of casualties in every military campaign from Troy to Pharsalus to Austerlitz to Kandahar, it would probably be more accurate to abandon the category of "collateral damage" and instead define an army as "an organzation of armed men designed for killing civilians."
I think you are missing the whole point of RW’s post do to your love of history Jacob. RW is drawing parallels between ancient Rome and present America. The history doesn’t have to be perfect and the history we are talking about here is based on the written word regardless of whether it is found in JSTOR or Wikipedia. Despite the strenuous objections of I F Stone has anything ever really been written objectively? When you put a gun or a sword in a man’s hands Jacob he is no longer a civilian. Since Obama took office, the annual firearms purchase volume here in the U.S. has exceeded the small arms purchases of the world's top 15 militaries combined. Just like ancient Greece and Rome we have very few civilians here in America.
I am done now Jacob you can come back on here and call me whatever you want. I happen to think you are a very good writer and am putting you in my favorites.
I don't exactly understand your interpretation of Spartacus and Hannibal, or much else about the careers of those almost world-historical apparitions. Why didn't Hannibal march on Rome after the Battle of Cannae in 216? He had just destroyed two consular armies, along with about a third of the Roman senate, and the usual explanation that he needed reinforcements from Carthage is absurd.
50,000 Romans died at Cannae in one day! And it's the other guys who supposedly needed reinforcements?
And likewise, how could Rome have defended itself after Spartacus destroyed a consular army in 72 BCE, and every other Roman army was either engaged with Mithridates in Asia Minor or mired down in Hispania with Pompey?
On both those occasions Rome was virtually an open city, and yet Hannibal and Spartacus merely floated south, all the way to Calabria, on almost exactly the same senseless track. Ancient historians like Appian and Plutarch didn't even try to explain that craziness.
Returning to Michael Parenti's "discovery" of a link between Julius Caesar and the landless and unemployed mobs which he mistakenly identifies as the Roman populus, with no other justification than promoting his own pseudo-populist political agenda...
The affinity of tyrants for a demoralized and homogenized Pöbel was already well-described by Aristotle and Herodotus in the famous anecdote about Thrasybulus, who taught other would-be tyrants how to rule by lopping off the top of every tall stalk in a field of corn, until only an undifferentiated mass remained.
Sorry its taken me so long to reply, but my job is pretty intense and gives me little free time. It is clear you know a great deal about antiquity, but I may surprise you, having read numerous books on the subject. That said, I will not engage in petty personal attacks, particularly since I notice that you are progressive from your page. Ronald Reagan's 11th amendment was "Thou shalt not attack thy fellow Republican." We should be the same way. Totally debate ideas, yes, but not engage in divisive personal attacks. This is not productive and can actually be self-defeating.
1. If plebeians had no input or influence with local Roman politics, if class warfare and prole upheaval wasn't a constant, nerve-wracking fear of the Roman Patricianate, then why did they work so hard to limit, co-opt and 0r outright suppress the lower orders? Why was there a divide between Optimates and Populares? Why did the Populares oppose slavery? Why did Sulla try to undo all the reforms of the Populares? Throughout my readings on ancient Rome (which have not been confined to wikipedia, mind you, but which have included Plutarch, Suetonius, Polybius, Matthias Gelzer, Gibbon, Toynbee and the like), they have all mentioned that the over-arching fear of the Roman aristocracy during this time was (a) military abuse of the "best men" i.e., the patricians, by other patricians and (b) class-stability in Rome. If this was not an issue, then why all the anxiety about the Gracchi? Why the constant need to bring the Plebes to one's side through speeches and harangues at the Rostrum? Later, after the Civil Wars, why the over-arching need to keep them placated with Egyptian grain, the denarii dole and mass, spectator entertainment at the Coliseum, if not to keep them idle and controlled, for fear of a possible upheaval?
Let's, for a second, assume that you are correct, though. Let's assume that the Roman Plebeians were not a force to be reckoned with and did not matter, despite the fact that they were 95% of the population or some similar such percentage. Then does this not prove my point that Roman democracy was dead long-before Caesar? If the local nobles do not worry about the local masses, if their concerns can be ignored, despite their majoritarian status, and if the only thing that matters is military force, then does this not bolster Caesar's argument that the Optimates had so destroyed Roman democracy as to make it meaningless?
Finally, if an underlying patrician fear of the Plebeians marks the pre-Civil War age of Rome, and if an underlying Establishment fear of the Plebeians marks the post Civil War, imperial age of Rome, then why would such fears have magically disappeared during the intervening Civil War, during one of the biggest contest between Plebes and Patricians, between Populares and Optimates? Surely this makes no sense. Logic and the facts show that the local mob was always a factor, even if not the over-riding one, due to the prevailing military situation. We must also not forget that the Plebes made up the largest percentage of troops in the Legions. That Caesar was able to win so many of them to his standard is also proof that the Plebes supported him. Further, it stands to reason that the families and friends of the Legionaries, who were left home, were also very pro Caesar. Certainly they would be pro-caesar in the streets of Rome as well? These relationships and networks, like all human networks, are all inextricably intertwined and interlinked. I have also read in Edward Luttwack (I think it was his book on the Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire), that one purpose of the legions was also to remove violent and aggressive plebes from the native population and send them abroad in service of the state, so as to reduce the chances of domestic upheaval. This is also interesting.
2. Regarding wikipedia, I agree with you that it is not an academic source. That said, it is a useful jumping-off point for the lay reader who wishes to learn more. I did not learn my Roman or any other history for that matter, from wikipedia, but I merely cited it so that readers can see these facts and args in depth, see things that interest them, and perhaps go to amazon.com or Barnes & Noble in pursuit of further information and learned treatises on the subject.
You mention that much of the wikipedia entries are based on the works of the Roman historian, Abbott. You critique me for taking facts from these Abbott-inspired articles, but then disagreeing with the interpretations attached to said facts.
As an attorney, I am trained to do precisely this. Historians often have very little practical experience dealing with the fellow human beings. In the law, we are trained to acquire the truth through all the self-serving self-interest and cynicism of both the masses and the learned professional, even if they be academics. Historians often take the interps of long-dead historians at face value. I do not, just as I do not take the testimony of ANY witness in court at face value. All must be questioned and subjected to a rigorous analysis. Nobody is objective. Our perceptions distort everything.
That said, one can analyze the statements of various witnesses that pertain to certain facts and see if an underlying factual thread emerges, upon which they all agree. These common denominators can pretty safely be accepted as truth. What one must often due, though, is bifurcate: one must take the facts in without being influenced by the interpretations that witnesses attach to said facts. These interps may be useful, but they may not be accurate.
For example, let's say somebody, Mr. X, goes to a store to buy a cell-phone and tells the owner he wants to buy the cell phone to call his mom. This statement can be admitted in court to show the single, minute fact that Mr. X bought a cell phone from owner. OR, it can be used for hearsay purposes (an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted). In this case, the statement about the purpose of the cell phone. This statement can also be used for the limited purpose of showing that Mr. X said "123," but not whether he meant "123," (he may have in fact been a drug dealer and intended to use the cell phone as a disposable burner). The owner's interp of the conversation can be helpful, or not helpful, but his interp must be divorced from the actual facts of the encounter. This sort of analysis is absolutely necessary in law. It is even, perhaps, more crucial in historical analysis, but perhaps more difficult to employ.
Ergo, utilizing wikipedia and the facts it provided by way of Abbott does not in any way require that I rely upon the interpretations of said facts offered by Abbottt. Abbott may be a very good researcher and have great command and access to original sources. He may be fluent in latin and greek. Kudos to him. That said, intelligent minds should not take his interp of said facts at face-value. He may be an academic whiz-kid, but his understanding of human nature, the subtle nuances of politics and motives, indeed, perhaps even his ability at high level logic and analysis (historians have very little training in formal logic, whereas many lawyers are required to have such training), could necessarily detriment his interps of said facts . As such, there is no hypocrisy here in doing what I did. Indeed, it is highly suggested that all people be this critical. (you are correct for being critical of Parenti, as well, as we should all be, of all historians, regardless of their credentials or lack thereof).
(continued)
You base this rebuttal upon my assertion that this was the first peasant based movement for social justice, in recorded history, being destroyed by ethnic division. I believe this assertion still stands and I believe your proffered example does not refute it. Here is why:
a. Your example, from what I can make of it, primarily pertains to foreign policy, whereas mine pertains to internal domestic policy and mass movements within a nation. Your example pertains to external relations, mine to internal relations.
Your example basically pertains to an alliance between two or more states not being entered into, due to ethnic solidary between members of the same dorian/ionian groups and/or ethnic animosity between dorians and Ionians. You state that this ethnic chauvinism prevented these states from pursuing what was in their rational best interests.
This is vastly unlike the situation I was discussing in regard to the Gracchi. It is not analogous and as such, the attempted refutation necessarily fails. It is clear that numerous foreign wars and international alliances in antiquity were or were not engaged in, due to ethnolinguistic animosity and/or fraternity, particularly since politics in the ancient world were so dominated by perceived (albeit not always actual) ethnic/religious/tribal politics, in some places more so than others.
There is a fundamental difference between an internal mass movement, political movement within a single given state failing, due to ethnic divisions within said state system (Rome and its dominions), and an international military alliance breaking down due to ethnic divisions. You are currect in that there were prior instances of ethnic divisions dividing people. This is a very general concept though, and was not the point that I made. My point was limited to internal political affairs based on class interests being nullified due to the presence of over-riding ethnic considerations, such that the class-based economic and/or political interests could not be realized.
Your example is good, and is analogous to the American tendency to ally with Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand in various international disputes, and their tendency to side with us, regardless of whether it is in their own economic and/or political interests. That being said, such foreign policy considerations were outside the scope of my analysis.
I was not arguing that Lincoln as a man was analogous to Caesar as a man. Clearly, Lincoln was a far better person, and was a civilian leader who took power through a much fairer and legitimate election. In terms of character and morality, he appears to be light years ahead of Caesar (from what we can tell, based on the historical record).
That said, I was attempting a micro, mechanistic analogy. I was not comparing Caesar to Lincoln as men, per se, but was analogizing the mechanism of opposition that served as the basis for their assassination. One can compare the hands of humans, gorrillas, chimpanzees, Koalas, Pandas, Iguanadons and kangaroos, analogizing the mechanisms of hand/arm structure, the presence/use of a possible opposable thumb, digit dexterity and the like, without making a broader and more generalized comparison between them as species. Saying that a kangaroo may have used his hand like an Iguanadon on certain occaisions is in no way the same thing as saying that a kangaroo is, in fact, analogous to an Iguanadon. There is a sublte difference between the two sorts of analogies here.
What I was discussing re: Lincoln was that the South in general and the Booth conspirators in particular, opposed him on grounds very similar to those put forth by the assassins of Caesar, regardless of whether or not Booth's motivations were justified or whether the motivations of the Senatorial conspiracy against Caesar were justified. I was merely stating that the mechanisms of opposition were similar.
The South in general and Booth in particular had a variety of grounds for opposing Lincoln and seeing him as a "tyrant," although I think they were unjustified in this, and that their opinions were no doubt influenced by propaganda and class-bias. That said, why did they oppose Lincoln?
a. Using force to prevent peaceful seccession, calling on the troops of other states to oppress the state forces of other states
b. Putting huge swaths of Maryland and Missouri under martial law
c. Getting broad executive warmaking and martial law, habeas corpus suspension rights granted to him by Congress by way of the powers enumerated to them by way of the Militia Acts.
d. Suspending Habeas Corpus, in fact, in numerous areas of the country and keeping potential political enemies in jail without access to a judicial proceeding to determine guilt, until the war was over. In fact, the US Supreme Court found Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus to be unconstitutional in Ex Parte Merryman, but Lincoln, Congress and the US Army blatantly ignored the ruling and proceeded to utilize martial law, military tribunals for civilians and imprisonment of political enemies without recourse to a habeas corpus proceeding throughout the entirety of the war, expanding to various other states, beyond Maryland (in which the original instance was applied). 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).
Troops were also used to put down civilian protests and opposition even behind the front-lines of the war. The actions of U.S. General Benjamin "Beast" Butler in Baltimore, the use of troops to bloodily put-down the NYC Draft Riots of 1863 (Democratic Party /Copperhead stronghold highly sympathetic to the Confederacy).
Questionable means of acquiring new states, so as to get electoral votes loyal to Lincoln (Nevada and West Virginia), the latter, by actually encouraging seccession from VA in a war ostensibly fought to prevent seccession.
The Emancipation Proclamation, although totally justified morally, economically and militarily from the Union perspective, caused outrage among the southern Planter class, because they felt Lincoln was inciting Servile Insurrection.
Widespread infringement on southern property rights, violations against civilians, particularly by General Sherman in his famous "March to the Sea," where he burned many homes, villages and even the city of Atlanta, down to the ground.
Of course, "War is Hell," as Sherman said, and the US was in a dangerous situation. If we had lost the Civil War, it is very likely that European powers such as Britain (from bases in Canada) and Second Empire Napoleonic France (from bases in Mexico, under the control of the Emperor Maximillian), could divide and conquer the new nation and weaken the principles of liberty and justice upon which the new nation was founded. The Constitution could have gone the way of the dodo. I think Lincoln and many of the folks fighting for him truly thought all these things were needed. In hindsight, many of them may have been, some of them may not have been. But this is all irrelevant.
The fact is that Southerners, particularly wealthy southerners whose cotton plantations, slaves and whole way of life were destroyed, hated Lincoln because of the economic effect he had upon them and what they perceived would continue to have upon them. They saw him as an illegitimate, wrongly or not, due to his not having won a majority in the Presidential Election of 1860 and his conduct of the war. Many wanted him dead.
It is easy to dismiss these objections by the South because they were the "bad guys" in our civil war and because they embraced slavery. That said, the legal and non-slavery property rights depradations of the Union army and civilian abuses were justly opposed by Southerners, even if we were justified in inflicting said abuses upon them for purposes of war.
Both sides can have reasonably-based opposition to eachother, which is one of the things that often makes war and litigation, so messy and tragic.
It is in this regard, i.e., the economic and social/class motivations behind the asssassinations, the mechanism of assassination, per se, that Caesar and Lincoln are analogous. Clearly, though, they are not analogous in other ways. You are correct in pointing this out and I totally agree with you. That said, I think I was correct in saying that the mechanisms of assassination and the motivations attaching, were analogous.
Hannibal's army didn't have the siege equipment to do this and his natural base of operations would have been in the southern "boot" area of Italy, where many Carthaginian allies resided.
Immediately following Cannae, he may have had the ability to take out Rome, but war often involves incomplete information, or "the fog of war," as it is often called. He had no way of knowing if Roman troops were on there way to refortify Rome, reinforce it, if various Roman allies from the north were on their way south. He also lacked effective siege equipment for such an attack, immediately after Cannae. Although Rome's walls were small, they were more than enough to withstand Hannibal for a period of time sufficient for a relief force from the north, from Rome's allies and northern areas, to intervene, forcing Hannibal to fight a deadly 2 sided encirclement battle, such as that later fought by Caesar at Alesia. That said, Rome wasn't Alesia and this would have been too dangerous, even for Hannibal, to attempt.
What's less clear is what Hannibal did between Cannae and Zama.
Although Varro was able to displace the successful Fabius Maximus and his successful guerilla-style tactics against Hannibal (which resulted in Varro's being totally destroyed at Cannae), it seems that Rome re-adopted the Fabian approach after Cannae, which may have prevented Hannibal from being able to solidify his position enough to go after Rome. Further, Rome's allies to the north were sending more and more troops down, which would slowly outnumber Hannibal. Hannibal was stuck in the boot area of Italy, where natural Carthaginian allies resided and only went home to fight to defend Carthage. It seems that Rome was slowly acquiring numerical superiority, fighting against Hasdrubal in Spain, (taking a counter indirect approach against Hannibal) with which they could not only pin Carthaginian forces in Span, but also build up enough forces to pin/hold Hannibal in Italy. Finally, they were able to launch a surprise attack on the Carthaginian mainland, forcing Hannibal to retreat to Africa to fight the battle of Zama.
In any event, it is obvious why Hannibal didn't go after Rome right after Cannae. Bevin Alexander wrote a good book about military strategy, one chapter of which concerns Hannibal. Its called "How Great Generals Win." I strongly suggest it. Also, B.H. Liddell Hart's book, "Strategy," has some good stuff on Hannibal as well.
2. Spartacus. Its clear that his army was going to head north, but his army was not well disciplined in the non-fighting aspects of warfare. They were good fighters, but unruly and lacked the fortitude of the Roman legions. It seems Spartacus himself wanted to go north over the mountains, across the adriatic by the venice area, and then march east. However, many of his lieutenants wanted to stay in Italy where they could plunder. Some also wanted to get naval transport back to the mediterranean areas where many of them (the freed slaves) originated.
It seems Spartacus never took Rome because he feared reinforcements, had incomplete info about Roman strength and dispositions and also because his hold over his own army was tenuous at best. You can only do so much with the clay you are given.
In any event, we can discuss Spartacus and Hannibal on a later post and should focus on the argument of class politics in the late Republic, which was the focus of the post above. Thanks.
There were rules about Legions not being allowed in Rome proper, and there were limited forces at the Patricians' disposal to put down domestic, urban insurrection. This is why, after the Civil War, Praetorian Guards (orginally just elite military units), were place in Rome proper and its outskirts, to protect the Emperor from armed insurrection. Often, the Praetorians clashed with armed mobs.
Of course, trained soldiers always tended to win. That said, it seems there is a cycle of injustice at work here. The elite oppresses the masses unjustly. The masses respond and retaliate violently. The elite, rather than being just and equitable and meeting the demands of the masses, instead resorts to increased armed force to suppress the masses. It results in an increasing spiral of violence and suppression, with nobody's rights being met. And the force utilized to protect the interests of the wealthy republican elite, winds up undoing that very republic it was created to protect. Such is the folly of history...
About the power of the plebs, whom I called a non-factor in the immediate destiny of Rome around 48 BCE...
It seems to me that your accurate description of the care and success with which the Senatorial class typically suppressed and bribed the plebs only reinforces my claim that the Roman mobs were powerless in fact if not in potential, especially in comparison with an unprecedented force of 50 legions, and the Roman mobs could no more choose between Caesar and Pompey than the animals in a zoo can elect their own zoo-keepers, although lions and tigers and bears are very dangerous animals indeed, or else why would they be confined behind such high walls?
About Hannibal you say...
"Although Rome's walls were small, they were more than enough to withstand Hannibal for a period of time sufficient for a relief force from the north, from Rome's allies and northern areas, to intervene..."
This fantastic underestimation of Hannibal's resoucefulness also appears in some "scholarly" discussions of the Second Punic War, but it really isn't much more credible than claiming a maiden can protect herself from Mike Tyson by cowering behind a shower curtain.
Hannibal had just slaughtered 50,000 Romans at Cannae, which is to say virtually every Roman who could carry a shield, and now the Roman walls were defended only by a force analogous to the old men and boys of the British Home Guard in WWII.
And who was this Hannibal who supposedly retreated in the face of such a pitiful obstacle? Let's observe the same faint-hearted and easily discouraged fellow as he descended through the Alps in 218 BCE.
(Livy, History of Rome, 21:36-37)
"At length they came to a much narrower pass which descended over such sheer cliffs that a light-armed soldier could hardly get down it even by hanging on to projecting roots and branches. The place had always been precipitous, and a landslip had recently carried away the road for 1000 feet. The cavalry came to a halt here as though they had arrived at their journey's end, and whilst Hannibal was wondering what could be causing the delay he was informed that there was no passage. Then he went forward to examine the place and saw that there was nothing for it but to lead the army by a long circuitous route over pathless and untrodden snow. But this, too, soon proved to be impracticable. The old snow had been covered to a moderate depth by a fresh fall, and the first comers planted their feet firmly on the new snow, but when it had become melted under the tread of so many men and beasts there was nothing to walk on but ice covered with slush. Their progress now became one incessant and miserable struggle. The smooth ice allowed no foothold, and as they were going down a steep incline they were still less able to keep on their legs, whilst, once down, they tried in vain to rise, as their hands and knees were continually slipping. There were no stumps or roots about for them to get hold of and support themselves by, so they rolled about helplessly on the glassy ice and slushy snow. The baggage animals as they toiled along cut through occasionally into the lowest layer of snow, and when they stumbled they struck out their hoofs in their struggles to recover themselves and broke through into the hard and congealed ice below, where most of them stuck as though caught in a gin. "
"At last, when men and beasts alike were worn out by their fruitless exertions, a camp was formed on the summit, after the place had been cleared with immense difficulty owing to the quantity of snow that had to be removed. The next thing was to level the rock through which alone a road was practicable. The soldiers were told off to cut through it. They built up against it an enormous pile of tall trees which they had felled and lopped, and when the wind was strong enough to blow up the fire they set light to the pile. When the rock was red hot they poured vinegar upon it to disintegrate it. After thus treating it by fire they opened a way through it with their tools, and eased the steep slope by winding tracks of moderate gradient, so that not only the baggage animals but even the elephants could be led down."
So maybe it's fair to say that the same general and the same army which had disintegrated a high-altitude passage through the Alps in heavy snow (and determined resistance from the local Roman allies) could have likewise improvised a few siege-engines and forced a passage through the Servian Walls, defended only by an adolescent or valetudinarian Home Guard.
And now, instead of sparring through the rest of your thoughtful comments, I propose instead that we undertake a common enterprise, and turn our attention to an analysis of exactly how the American military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone so ridiculously wrong, and even continue to get worse, inevitably or not, and I'll send you a message through the OS message system in a couple of days about how I imagine we might begin, along with as many additional collaborators as we can attract.
8)
You know? I watch all the economic "experts" on the news or read their stuff on the Net and it seems to me that they all, every damned one of them, seem to get so caught up in their economic theories and philosophical ideals that they've simply become a slave to their own ideas and can't break away from them long enough to devise a means to find balance. Like politicians, they argue “my way is the right way” for so long, there’s no way out of the mess they created to begin with. They remind me of the kids in school who become near genius at reciting theory, but haven't a clue as to how to truly apply it.
I was just reading about Ireland’s financial woes and for some reason I was surprised to see that the financial strength they’d just begun building has gone to hell too and, in fact, mirrors the U.S. almost perfectly, so much so that they even got caught up in bailing out banks and corporations using taxpayer money.
You ever get the feeling that it's all a trial an error effort and we're the rats in the maze?
This created a period of economic instability so severe, it paved the way for Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III) to come to power and establish his proto-Fascist regime a few years later.
Just read the first 5 pages of "the Class Struggles in France" and tell me what you think. (I'm no Marxist, but Marx was a smart dude and wrote some interesting stuff; that said, you must read it with a grain of salt and a critical mind, as you should with the works of all philosophers and theoreticians)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch01.htm
And here I keep using the silly cliché "we must remember history so it doesn't repeat itself." Hell, it is repeating itself and it appears that it's doing so because the people in the financial world are reading history better than we are, or at least learned to use it better.
This is one hell of a fascinating comparison (I was about to say coincidence, but I think that would be a misrepresentation, to say the least). Reading this is almost surreal, if I didn't know I was reading about France, I'd say it was about us.
It prompted me to read a little bit about France's current economy just to see what they were doing and it appears that they've already made a pretty damned good recovery. Maybe they learned their lesson. For now.