Could Rome Have Survived if it had organized as a pluralistic democracy?

[SLD]

Kind of like the United States? i.e. a federal system with local elections for candidates to represent them in the capital. Governors are elected by local people, and there are local legislatures for local problems. A professional army with allegiance to a Constitution instead of a man?

I wonder if Caesar could have instituted such a system. Even if he had appointed himself king or dictator for life. Maybe not with a King.

It seems to me that the fall of the Roman empire can be traced to him and the troubles surrounding his rule and downfall. The precedence was set. Take power by force. Kill the leader and establish yourself in power. The two hundred years following Augustus's reign were relatively peaceful, but they were punctuated by sharp rebellions over the succession of emperors - except for a period of the five good emperors who managed to see that power was passed peacefully. But that system was inevitably flawed as for the first four emperors fortunately did not have sons to take over. The fifth did (or at least plausibly did as Commodus may have been illegitimate). The result was Commodus who was a disaster and initiated the series of rebellions and counter rebellions that sucked the life out of the empire.

Had they a different system, could they have controlled all the indigenous populations? or would there be too many centrifugal movements tearing it apart and making the whole of it ungovernable? Palestine clearly wanted independence; but would they have been content with local self government under a federal system? They seem to be the worst of the bunch. The Greeks, Gauls, Spanish and the Africans seemed to have accepted Roman rule in ways that Palestine would not.

Food for thought.

SLD

 

[Sarpedon]

Given that the United States existed as a republican democracy before the industrial/transportation revolution, the main obstacle wouldn't have been technology...unless you take the very plausible view that without the printing press, and specifically, newspapers, modern democracy isn't possible. The vast majority of the population of the Empire was within a couple of weeks travel to Rome.

It probably would have been a more cultural/logistics. With a moderate level of literacy, the execution of the basic functions would have been fairly easy in Greece, Italy, and other heavily colonized areas. However, what would you have done with some of the vassal kingdoms? Or parts of the empire with no tradition of democracy or low literacy rates?

I believe that Julius Caesar did introduce non romans such as gauls to the Senate, which caused some people to freak right the fuck out, and stab him. So possibly this would have prevented later caesars from trying the same.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, democracies don't seem to have a problem with waging wars, concentrating power in the elites, ignoring the poor or generally engaging in any kind of fuckup which might have led to the end of the Roman Empire. I don't know if it would have made much of a difference beyond switching out a few lines of rhetoric in some politicians' speeches for a few other lines of rhetoric.

 

[Sarpedon]

The big question would have been whether slavery would have done a democratic Rome in, like it nearly did with us.

There was a great deal of tension between free and slave in Rome, regarding competition for labor. If all of the sudden the lower class could vote (which is what I assume when you say 'pluralistic democracy,' the middle class COULD vote in Rome), I expect that would have come to a boil pretty quick.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The big question would have been whether slavery would have done a democratic Rome in, like it nearly did with us.

There was a great deal of tension between free and slave in Rome, regarding competition for labor. If all of the sudden the lower class could vote (which is what I assume when you say 'pluralistic democracy,' the middle class COULD vote in Rome), I expect that would have come to a boil pretty quick.

I don't know, look at poor white Southerners in the US in the 1900s and their attitude towards black slavery. Having someone who's even worse off than you goes a long way towards ameliorating negative feelings. While it would likely have led to a bit more trickle down economics in the form of bread and circuses to appease the masses and maybe some slaves getting killed by poor Romans from time to time (because it's probable that the slaves would be the ones getting blamed for stealing their jobs), I don't think it would have made much of a difference to the slave market.

 

[Sarpedon]

The difficulty is that while Rome's economy was preindustrial, it was more advanced than the ones that replaced it. There's literally no comparison to it, as by the time we rebuilt ourselves to Roman levels, we promptly lurched into the industrial era.

I wonder if Rome had lasted a century or so, they would have had an industrial revolution. On the one hand, they had the economy and the literacy and so forth, but on the other hand, they didn't have the labor shortage which triggered so much of the labor saving devices that ushered in the industrial revolution.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A Nation Starts Dying When Dynasty Becomes Destiny

Democracy and aristocracy cannot co-exist. The children of the rich must be cut off from their parents' money at age 18. Anyone whose parent held office should be disqualified from holding office. Just like term limits, that is not fair in theory but in reality, far too many offices wind up in the same families. So Rome would have had to to abolish all patrician rights even if it had resembled modern republics.

 

[rjh01]

To have democracy you need a history of democracy. It is something that evolves. This is something Rome never had. You would also need a large middle class who want to vote. And a weakened upper class that is willing to give the power to the middle class. The later the Romans never had.

Upper class = People who can pay the rulers for anything they want. The rulers get most of their money this way.

Middle class = people who are not in the upper class but have more money than is needed to buy basic food, clothing, housing and other similar things.

 

[dystopian]

It seems to me that the fall of the Roman empire can be traced to him and the troubles surrounding his rule and downfall.

Uhm...

...the *birth* of the Roman empire can be traced to Caesar, *not* its downfall. Caesar's to blame for the downfall of the Roman *Republic*. If the argument is that the eventual fall of the empire is to be blamed on the notion of the strong taking power by force, then one should probably blame Galba for setting the example of rebelling against the ruling dynasty, since it had been stable for quite some time.

 

[Bronzeage]

The first thing to remember is, an Empire is a conglomeration of different peoples who have no cultural or geographical reasons to be a political unit.

The economy of the Roman Empire was based on theft and it's industry was based on slave labor. There was a constant flow of wealth from the conquered territories, back to Rome. An Empire system, with supreme power vested in the office of the Emperor.

A Roman governor was given his office with the understanding he would remit a certain amount back to Rome, and he could keep the rest. Anything which would put more power in local officials, would upset the flow of wealth and undermine the Empire at its foundation.

 

[Will Wiley]

It seems to me that the fall of the Roman empire can be traced to him and the troubles surrounding his rule and downfall.

Uhm...

...the *birth* of the Roman empire can be traced to Caesar, *not* its downfall. .

Unless the seeds are present at it's birth. The same has been argued about the US empire.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Failed-Imperial-Decline/dp/1118061810

 

[Bomb#20]

It seems to me that the fall of the Roman empire can be traced to him and the troubles surrounding his rule and downfall.

Uhm...

...the *birth* of the Roman empire can be traced to Caesar, *not* its downfall. .

Unless the seeds are present at it's birth. The same has been argued about the US empire.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Failed-Imperial-Decline/dp/1118061810

Toynbee attributed the Fall of the Roman Empire to the policy failures of the Peloponnesian War. The seeds were already present for hundreds of years before its birth: doomed by a bunch of Greeks who'd never even heard of an insignificant republic in a far away land.

(Of course, Toynbee was one of the intellectual architects of Chamberlain's appeasement policy...)

 

[SLD]

It seems to me that the fall of the Roman empire can be traced to him and the troubles surrounding his rule and downfall.

Uhm...

...the *birth* of the Roman empire can be traced to Caesar, *not* its downfall. Caesar's to blame for the downfall of the Roman *Republic*. If the argument is that the eventual fall of the empire is to be blamed on the notion of the strong taking power by force, then one should probably blame Galba for setting the example of rebelling against the ruling dynasty, since it had been stable for quite some time.

No. It's the fall. Galba was important, but the Republic survived Galba. Caesar's seizure of power, and his assassination paved the way for future would be leaders. There was never an accepted and established succession mechanism. It is not merely that the strong were seizing power by force. Later monarchies seemed to survive quite well over a thousand years without the constant struggle for power that characterized the third century in Rome. As I said, Rome got lucky in the second century with the five good emperors. But the succession problem reared its head soon after the death of Tiberius, and Rome could have crumbled much earlier had it not been for Vespasian in 69 AD.

Of course Caesar may have had a thought to the future and it was snuffed out by his assassination. We'll never know. But it was him who truly established the historical precedent of raising a personal army and using it to put yourself on the throne.

SLD

 

[iolo]

If Rome had had a 'pluralist democracy', how would it ever have got the Empire in the first place? It did so because it soon acquired a professional army, and such a body will inevitably see to it that it takes so much of the social product as to destroy the state it preys on - not to mention slavery, which was basic to the economy and made real democracy impossible.!

 

[Bronzeage]

If Rome had had a 'pluralist democracy', how would it ever have got the Empire in the first place? It did so because it soon acquired a professional army, and such a body will inevitably see to it that it takes so much of the social product as to destroy the state it preys on - not to mention slavery, which was basic to the economy and made real democracy impossible.!

The time of the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire happened to be a century or more of very good weather. This allowed the Italian peninsula to produce great surpluses of wheat. This in turn led to a great rise in population. Rome found itself with a surplus of robust healthy young men. This was the foundation of a professional army that could travel in a mass and could rely on supplies from the home base. This eliminated the need to supply by forage, which up to this time had been the limiting factor on a large army in hostile territory.

 

[Sarpedon]

Didn't a number of later emperors try to expand citizenship to non italians in order to solidfy the empire? I don't think it is absurd to imagine a scenerio where an emperor would try to increase his support against the magnates by extending greater rights and political powers to the people. Rulers frequently took populist views when they felt more threatened by the nobles than the common people (which was usually). Caesar certainly did. None went so far as what we are talking about, but it is not an outlandish thing to speculate about.

I'm reminded of Franz Ferdinand's plan to transform the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a federation of states in order to weaken the Hungarians and strengthen the crown.

 

[iolo]

Didn't a number of later emperors try to expand citizenship to non italians in order to solidfy the empire? I don't think it is absurd to imagine a scenerio where an emperor would try to increase his support against the magnates by extending greater rights and political powers to the people. Rulers frequently took populist views when they felt more threatened by the nobles than the common people (which was usually). Caesar certainly did. None went so far as what we are talking about, but it is not an outlandish thing to speculate about.

I'm reminded of Franz Ferdinand's plan to transform the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a federation of states in order to weaken the Hungarians and strengthen the crown.

It was extended, in essence, to increase taxes. Julius Caesar inherited the popular cause from his uncle Marius, but his own nephew saw to it that the plebs never had any real power. Yes, the Emperors depended on the mob, but only as long as the army (particularly the Praetorian Guard) were contented with their money. The set-up was closer to fascism than democracy.

 

[iolo]

If Rome had had a 'pluralist democracy', how would it ever have got the Empire in the first place? It did so because it soon acquired a professional army, and such a body will inevitably see to it that it takes so much of the social product as to destroy the state it preys on - not to mention slavery, which was basic to the economy and made real democracy impossible.!

The time of the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire happened to be a century or more of very good weather. This allowed the Italian peninsula to produce great surpluses of wheat. This in turn led to a great rise in population. Rome found itself with a surplus of robust healthy young men. This was the foundation of a professional army that could travel in a mass and could rely on supplies from the home base. This eliminated the need to supply by forage, which up to this time had been the limiting factor on a large army in hostile territory.

It seems to me that opening the citizenship to the Italians they conquered was the essential feature of a sufficiently large army.

 

[Bronzeage]

The time of the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire happened to be a century or more of very good weather. This allowed the Italian peninsula to produce great surpluses of wheat. This in turn led to a great rise in population. Rome found itself with a surplus of robust healthy young men. This was the foundation of a professional army that could travel in a mass and could rely on supplies from the home base. This eliminated the need to supply by forage, which up to this time had been the limiting factor on a large army in hostile territory.

It seems to me that opening the citizenship to the Italians they conquered was the essential feature of a sufficiently large army.

There were always foreign troops in the Roman army. They were in units called Auxiliaries. Roman citizenship was granted to an Auxiliary who retired in good standing.

 

[iolo]

It seems to me that opening the citizenship to the Italians they conquered was the essential feature of a sufficiently large army.

There were always foreign troops in the Roman army. They were in units called Auxiliaries. Roman citizenship was granted to an Auxiliary who retired in good standing.

I know, but regular legionaries were Roman citizens, which the Italians early became.