The Fall of the Roman Republic and Fall of the American Republic

[TitusCicero]

Sorry about the length but this a deep subject so if your feint of heart go back to eating potato chips.
Being a sycophantic history buff of antiquity and the classical periods specifically the Romans and Greeks people that know me often querry me if the fall Roman Republic is like current events in the American Republic. These people are often convinced that there is a comparison. But in reflection I often wasn’t completely sure and I often believed that there is no comparison between those times. I however have recently changed my mind.
Current events now seem to reflect better with the fall of the Roman Republic. I would like to refer to one book precisely: The Gracchi Marius and Sulla (Kindle Edition) by Beesely A.H. which addressed the issues facing the Roman Republic societal and political institutions and what repercussions it would have.
During the Republic Sulla marched in and took the Republic because Marius took over the Government. Marius was a popularis and crazy (supported the plenians equilvelent, kinda, to liberals.) Sulla was a staunch supporter of the Senate which were like the Boni (“good men” ie: (noble men).) These Boni are comparable to our right wing party the Republicans. Sulla drove out Marius and instituted heavy rules in favor of the Senate (i.e.: Aristos Aristocrats) while killing many of the equites which are the publicani (they are comparable to our current day business men.) Sulla seen the problem but acted reactionary by killing them. The very definition of reactionary.
One could compare the aforementioned time to our current Bush administration. Events move quickly in modern times and didn't require 30 years. Ultemitely these rules allowed aristocrats to control everything. They stole everything and enslaved Roman citizens via slave idebtment. This time frame could be compared to our current economic situation. We let the thieves out of the door and they stole EVERYTHING.
This brings us to the current situation. This will drive some people crazy but I have to say it: Obama is like Caesar. A simple strait forward energetic reasonable character which happens to be a popularis comes to power during screwed up time. Doesn't need to be anyone special it just happened to Obama. He is part of the formula, he is a variable of this soup, nothing else. Extreme actions needed to be taken to try and fix the system as in the Ancient Republic. However the Boni (specifically Cato the Younger) represented by the modern Repuclicans.
Cato was so crazy mad over what Caesar was doing (the sensible thing) that they just went nuts: “Caesar wanted to be Rex/King.” “Caesar raped and was an adulterer.” “Caesar is a tyrant (sic simper tyrannis).” “Caesar this” and “Caesar that” and everything but a solution to the obvious problem that they the Boni seemed oblivious to. Precisely what is occurring in our contemporary times. Say it’s not please. Tell me im wrong!
If we follow suit with history next the Republics will drive Obama to do something and Obama being a reasonable person will have to commit to an action that will end this great Republic and forever change it’s future. Im not saying it’s a bad thing for the future though but bad things will happen. This is represented by the Boni/Cato forcing Caesar to cross the Rubicon to fix the Republic and take it away from these insane people.
What do you think?

[Stavroforos]

I think I'm just going to sit in here, grab a bag of popcorn, and wait to see how this goes down.

I'll just say though that drawing comparisons between current events and events 2000 years ago is not very wise. There might be many similarities on the surface, but the more you analyze it, the less comprable two situations become when they are spaced so far apart.

[Scorch]

I think I'm just going to sit in here, grab a bag of popcorn, and wait to see how this goes down.

I'll just say though that drawing comparisons between current events and events 2000 years ago is not very wise. There might be many similarities on the surface, but the more you analyze it, the less comprable two situations become when they are spaced so far apart.

I agree.

The idealistic and naive wish to see into history reflections of one's own time is something that historical analysis has never truly escaped, but there are points where we can draw the line.

Just my observations on the OP, separate of what has gone on since then (should be writing an essay, so not going to really read all that).

You assume that the 'democracy' that was in place via Roman institutions and the form of 'democracy' that the U.S.A. has in place are the same thing. It's a dangerous assumption in the first place to call Rome a democracy, really. Democracy was a thoroughly Greek ideal and had its true roots in the foundations of Greek thought and most importantly the ideal of the polis, and when transliterated into the context of Rome as a city-state, it could possibly be still called democracy. I'm not going to argue semantically against our use of the word democracy to describe our political institutions because that's pedantic and connotations of words change, but recognise that our democracy and Greek democracy are two almost separate ideals of governmental control. What I would argue, had I the time, is that democracy as it was in Antiquity and how the Romans recognised it is not what the Roman Republic practiced. It was almost an oligarchy, really, but with dictatorial and electorial (not democratic) elements.

The Roman constitution, at its heart and core, is a mixed constitution. If you're interested in such things I'd definitely recommend reading Polybius and his description of the Roman constitution (Book 6, you can find it online with relative ease).

While the comparison may seem slightly apt on an entirely superficial level, I'm afraid that once you look deeper you see that it doesn't really stick.

[Watchman]

"Roman" democracy was more or less the same in general practice as "Athenian" democracy, ie. de facto pretty seriously oligarchic on account of the rather strict restrictions on who was eligible to vote. Both might be argued to have a plutocratic streak as well, as the voting rights were pretty directly tied to military service as heavy infantry, which in turn required the wealth to possess a reasonably expensive panoply...

[bushbush]

load of crap. the strength of America's democratic institution outmatches that of ancient Rome 1000 times. It's not even comparable in any shape or form. I am sorry to say this but this thread is retarded.

[TitusCicero]

load of crap. the strength of America's democratic institution outmatches that of ancient Rome 1000 times. It's not even comparable in any shape or form. I am sorry to say this but this thread is retarded.

Really? How does it outmatch it? State your argument. You throw the word "retarded" but you have nothing but a word.

The Roman Republic was very much like our own time. Assemblies equals the house. Senate obviously equals the Senate and the president is like the Senior Consule. The only thing missing is the tribunes. The House is eating out of Obama's hands which is mainly Democratic. Am I insane or is that not comparible?

This is why Plato arguied against democracy because people can be convinced of anything through sophestry.

We take from history and apply it to our current situation. Herodotus.

[bushbush]

Really? How does it outmatch it? State your argument. You throw the word "retarded" but you have nothing but a word.

The Roman Republic was very much like our own time. Assemblies equals the house. Senate obviously equals the Senate and the president is like the Senior Consule. The only thing missing is the tribunes. The House is eating out of Obama's hands which is mainly Democratic. Am I insane or is that not comparible?

This is why Plato arguied against democracy because people can be convinced of anything through sophestry.

We take from history and apply it to our current situation. Herodotus.

dude, american institution is way stronger. How many presidents did US have now? How many sessions of Congress? When was the time that a president took on his own country? when was even the last time there was an armed rebellion led by a president????

[Il Duce]

Comparing the Roman Empire to the United States Republic is like comparing cave-paintings to Da Vinci

[Bokks]

I think that people have attacked the original post... "enough" so I'm going to focus on this and base my arguments against the entire thing from there since this quote of yours seems to be a leading concept of the misdirection that somehow "America=Rome"

The Roman Republic was very much like our own time. Assemblies equals the house. Senate obviously equals the Senate and the president is like the Senior Consule. The only thing missing is the tribunes. The House is eating out of Obama's hands which is mainly Democratic. Am I insane or is that not comparible?

This is all wrong. First off, you are going to see similarities because the model of American government was Rome, to some degree. I'd argue that the greatest model the government has though is from the Iroqoui Confederacy of the Seneca, Mohawk, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga and Tuscarora, but that's a different discussion.

The Senate (of Rome) was made of men that comprised the senatorial class, the requirment to be in that class was to maintain a fortune of 1,000,000 denarii. There is no such requirment in America, however much it may seem like it.

But going beyond that, most importantly is that the President is in no way comparable to the "Senior Consul", for one thing there was no "senior consul" of any actual effect unless you're talking about the age of the triumvirate, and for another there was effectively no executive branch of Roman government, it was all legislative if anything.

There exists the extremely real fact that Rome required to conquer and expand in order to bring in a constant source of treasure to feed its growing infrastructure. The US is completely self-dependent by those terms, as "conquest" only proves to weaken the US engine of progress and development.

Also, calling Obama "Caesar" (to delve into unpointed out aspects of the original post) is a drastic oversimplification that does a disservice to both men. For one thing, Caesar was a celebrity decades before he became dictator, whereas three years none of us had ever heard of Obama. For another Caesar thrived on military experience and strategic cunning, Obama relies on his worldly experinces from the time that he was raised and the travels he has had.

Your statement that "anyone could fill in the spot, Obama just fell into the job" is the final statement of utter dissimilarity. There was only one man who could be Caesar, and that was Caesar. Might someone other than Obama have become Obama? It's possible, maybe even likely, for that only time will tell.

You're missing a huge point however: Caesar destroyed the Republic. It was possible after the age of Sulla for the Republic to return to the way it was, but it was Caesar that ensured the rise of a distinct singular executive authority: the emperor.

Well, then there's the fact that Rome fell long ago.

[Dracula]

You can better compare it to the USSR in the 80s. Still mighty but in decay. There comes Gorbachev and puts an end to everything , good or bad. lol

[Stavroforos]

Yes, because prominent American politicians are able to fund and lead armies, and as such the threat of Ted Kennedy marching on Washington with his army is one of the many problems facing Washington.

[husker9.2]

Yes, because prominent American politicians are able to fund and lead armies, and as such the threat of Ted Kennedy marching on Washington with his army is one of the many problems facing Washington.

HAHAHA plus rep for u. i would be more worried about the bunch that wants to make weed legal....they could raise an enormous army

[Barry Goldwater]

Bull.

Bush cannot raise an army in the South, he cannot just cross the Potomac and waltz into the White House, he is not going to fight an epic battle at Bull Run with Joe Biden (a battle that will end in his victory and Biden's flight to Berkeley, where he will be assassinated by the fail-hippies trying to win Bush's mercy), and he is not going to go down at the hands of a bunch of conspirators, yelling 'You too, Dick?', shortly after seizing power.

[TitusCicero]

Bull.

Bush cannot raise an army in the South, he cannot just cross the Potomac and waltz into the White House, he is not going to fight an epic battle at Bull Run with Joe Biden (a battle that will end in his victory and Biden's flight to Berkeley, where he will be assassinated by the fail-hippies trying to win Bush's mercy), and he is not going to go down at the hands of a bunch of conspirators, yelling 'You too, Dick?', shortly after seizing power.

Wow! Who said anything about Bush raising an army? He out of the picture dude.

EDIT: No sound arguments as to why I am completly wrong? This board used to be challenging now it's just a bunch of one liners with no substance.

[husker9.2]

i'll have to agree with bushbush here. if Obama so much as fails once the pack of wolves known as the republicans will devour him. were as in ancient time Marius had a legion behind him to enforce his will and remove his enimies. Obama does not. yes his ris to power is similar in some way's to Caeser but the political enviroment is totally different.

[conon394]

TitusCicero

The basic problem with your analogy is that there is no easy and wealth making conquest to be had outside of the Republic in question and that in general Imperialism is a bad thing now.

If Obama was like big J than the easy solution to most of the US's problems would be to simply Overrun Saudi Arabia (and surrounds) - reduce its women to slaves in the US and line our freeways with anyone who objects up on a cross. Crucify a few hundred thousand people and I suspect the remainder if any will keep quit. No more OPEC – cheap oil – no import costs, etc - sadly as the Bush administration found out short victorious wars are hard to find and especially ones that reap a profit.

[TitusCicero]

TitusCicero

The basic problem with your analogy is that there is no easy and wealth making conquest to be had outside of the Republic in question and that in general Imperialism is a bad thing now.

.

I think you need to re-read the original post. What does conquest have anything to do with it?

[Stavroforos]

I think you need to re-read the original post. What does conquest have anything to do with it?

If Caesar hadn't conquered Gaul, he wouldn't have had the wealth, and thus the power he had, nor would he have had his own private legions.

[Barry Goldwater]

Wow! Who said anything about Bush raising an army? He out of the picture dude.

I was magnifying his character by a hundred thousand and comparing him to Caesar, since he was the first guy who popped into my mind when I thought 'someone likely to end a republic'

[John I Tzimisces]

As my history professor once said: "Lightening never strikes twice in history. That's just a stupid saying."