The Element of Freedom

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I was reading my good friend Gibbon recently; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And I found Gibbon's attribution of the decline to be most interesting. If you are at all familiar with his work, you know that he attributes it to the decay of the sense of civic duty.

But his analysis of how this came about was very interesting to me. Here is the passage that caught my attention.

It was scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.

...

Their personal valour remained, but they no longer possessed that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honour, the presence of danger, and the habit of command.

And I came to realize something; something that I hope is not common knowledge to all of you and something I was just slow to pick up. I mean, I've understood this idea in a general sense, but Gibbon really opened up the concept for me, and I've been able to analyze it in ways I have not thought before.

Usually, when I think of the benefits of freedom, I think of it this way: Freedom is good because I can manage myself and my possessions better than any ruler can. Thus, freedom will increase my potential as well as my material status.

Thus, freedom is better for my wealth and status.

But Gibbon tells us something entirely different! If you read chapter two, you will see Gibbon go through many aspects of the empire. The conclusion is that the material state of even the lowest subject of Rome was considerably improved.

That is, the average Gallic peasant had greater material possessions in "slavery" than he did in freedom.

So you think, how could this go wrong? If the true value of freedom lies in material possession, then Rome should have been a relative heaven on earth, because slavery was materially better than freedom. i.e., why be a poor freeman when you could be a rich slave?

Well, you might think of oppression. But on the whole, Roman law was actually quite an improvement. I would hardly label it oppressive.

So there must be more to freedom. Here was my conclusion:

Freedom is not a comfortable state or station of wealth and comfort; it is not a means to gain comfort or wealth.

Freedom is an essential element to the very core of man, which he needs just as his body needs food and water to grow. His spirit, if you will, requires freedom to flourish.

In the Roman Empire, people had virtually every material advantage over their previous state. I mean, obviously you could argue that but I'm saying BY AND LARGE, people were wealthier and better off. The status of some villager in Spain, after all, wasn't much to speak of in the first place.

Yet they lacked that fundamental element that is freedom, and because of it their initiative and ability waned over time. Even the incredible, history-shaping power of Rome could not sustain it inevitably.

What do you think?

[Dr. Croccer]

I think it's silly revisionism. Trying to picture the past with modern ideals is a bad thing to do. The Roman Empire during it's fall wasn't necessarily any less ''free'' than during it's rise. In fact, it was probably freeer. More religious freedom, and slavery became increasingly more liberal over the years.

Gibbon's theory of ''moral decay'' leading to the end of the empire has been heavily criticized. To quote J. B. Bury, who disagrred with Gibbon's theory:

''The gradual collapse of the Roman power …was the consequence of a series of contingent events. No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable.''

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I think it's silly revisionism. Trying to picture the past with modern ideals is a bad thing to do. The Roman Empire during it's fall wasn't necessarily any less ''free'' than during it's rise. In fact, it was probably freeer. More religious freedom, and slavery became increasingly more liberal over the years.

No, I'm not comparing the rise to the fall. I'm comparing the average peasant at independence, and then under Rome.

By himself, he was relatively poor. As you just said, greater religious freedom and liberalized slavery.

But ultimately, they answered to someone else.

Gibbon's theory of ''moral decay'' leading to the end of the empire has been heavily criticized.

Certainly he is not infallible, and certainly there were circumstantial causes, but I think it's foolish to decide that the ultimate cause HAD to be social decay OR it HAD to be circumstance.

Both, my good man; balance.

[Dr. Croccer]

No, I'm not comparing the rise to the fall. I'm comparing the average peasant at independence, and then under Rome.

''Independence''?

By himself, he was relatively poor. As you just said, greater religious freedom and liberalized slavery.

But ultimately, they answered to someone else.

What? Who?

Certainly he is not infallible, and certainly there were circumstantial causes, but I think it's foolish to decide that the ultimate cause HAD to be social decay OR it HAD to be circumstance.

Both, my good man; balance.

Thanks to Christianity? After all, that's what Gibbon claimed to be the greatest reason.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

''Independence''?

Okay; not independence exactly. However, you must see the difference between rule by one's own and rule by a foreign power.

What? Who?

The... umm... what do you call it? Eh...

Oh, yeah: EMPEROR. I think that's it...

Thanks to Christianity? After all, that's what Gibbon claimed to be the greatest reason.

Hardly. This has nothing to do with religion; I'm not even talking about moral decay. I'm talking about social decay; social values. This deals with concepts of the desire to improve onesself, initiative, etc.

I am not making a moral/religious conclusion. I made the conclusion, but THEN I did apply it to one particular religious issue. Furthermore, you seemed set on the idea that this was a moral/religious topic before I brought that into the picture.

You make some very interesting posts, Ariovistus, I'm actually inclined to agree with you.

Many thanks.

And, Dr. Croccer, I definitely see your point and agree with you that there were definite circumstantial issues. I cannot, however, agree that the decline of the empire had nothing to do with social values.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Now, I have another point to make that you may find surprising. On the basis of our understanding of the element of freedom, I want to talk breifly about God and suffering. Yes.

One of the biggest accusations that people level against God (whether specifically or in abstract) is that, in His supreme power, He still allows suffering. How could One so powerful sit by and let this happen?

First, you must understand the cause of suffering. Suffering occurs because people do wrong things. Much of human suffering is the result of human action. Now, my personal belief is that even nature is affected by man's separation from God, and thus we have death and disaster.

God very well could take over, fix up the universe, and make everything perfect once again. But what would this require?

It would require God to literally take us over; we would become veritable robots. We would no longer be free.

So, think of Rome. The people of Rome had unparalleled wealth. In a world where God takes over and makes us robots, WE WOULD HAVE UNPARALLELED WEALTH. Perfection, in fact.

But we would still have no freedom, and we would wither just like Rome did. The difference would be that God's reign would not actually fall; but we would simply be inert beings. We would move, act, think even, but we could NEVER flourish.

Their personal valour remained, but they no longer possessed that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honour, the presence of danger, and the habit of command.

We are built to need freedom, and God respects that. He could simply establish complete control, but then life would, in short, not be life.

There you have it; a social/historical explanation for earthly suffering.

[Katsumoto]

You make some very interesting posts, Ariovistus, I'm actually inclined to agree with you.

[Dr. Croccer]

Okay; not independence exactly. However, you must see the difference between rule by one's own and rule by a foreign power.

I don't understond your earlier post: what do you mean with ''independece or Rome''?

The... umm... what do you call it? Eh...

Oh, yeah: EMPEROR. I think that's it...

And? How does that affect civil freedoms?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I don't understond your earlier post: what do you mean with ''independece or Rome''?

Looks like a typo. See, I had about an hour untill the next class, and I've been thinking I should put this down for a while now.

But I can't find where I said that. It sounds like it should be independence FROM Rome. Which post is it?

And? How does that affect civil freedoms?

The introduction of Roman law, roman governors/infrastructure. They may have had limited autonomy, but you know that ultimately they answered to Rome.

Specifically, to your local friendly Legion.

[Dr. Croccer]

Looks like a typo. See, I had about an hour untill the next class, and I've been thinking I should put this down for a while now.

But I can't find where I said that. It sounds like it should be independence FROM Rome. Which post is it?

No, I'm not comparing the rise to the fall. I'm comparing the average peasant at independence, and then under Rome.

What do you mean with this.

The introduction of Roman law, roman governors/infrastructure. They may have had limited autonomy, but you know that ultimately they answered to Rome.

Specifically, to your local friendly Legion.

Again, during the Republican period they answered to Rome as well. Very little changed on an administrative level. I don't see you point.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Okay, the problem here is focus; I think that's the whole reason we misunderstand each other. Here's what I'm saying.

I am not comparing the Republic to the Empire. On the contrary, whether under republic or empire, the same time that Rome expanded it's borders, the social decline resultant of freedom taken began to set in.

That is, the fall only fell because they started to fall early on. The "golden age" and the "dark age" of Rome are not separate entities. The golden age declined into the dark age because of what we've been discussing: historical circumstance and social decline.

So, take the Gallic peasant in 80 BC. He answered to a chieftain perhaps, but certainly not to Rome.

Then take a peasant in, say, 30 AD. The core of my idea is that this peasant would probably be materially RICHER than his forbears. But without that essential element of freedom they could not flourish, so in the end their improved state of wellfare did not matter.

The comparison is between two people.

1. The citizen BEFORE Rome ever set foot in his land.

2. The peasant who is richer (as most would have been according to Gibbon), but ultimately subject to Rome.

In the end, this is not about WHY ROME FELL. It is simply looking at the fall of Rome, and concluding from it that freedom is an essential element to the society and the individual.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So, Doctor, now that I clarified my premis, what do you think? Kinda left me on a cliffhanger there.

[bushbush]

it's a bad and outdated book though. Just saying.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Quite possibly, yes. But it is worth something, and it offers a unique perspective that I think has at least SOME validity.

I mean, we see social decline EVERYWHERE throughout history.

Certainly no historian can be taken implicitly, but I think there's definite value in Gibbon's observations.

[Dr. Croccer]

The Romans never had the freedom you speak of. It's a more cultural than moral matter. Greco-Roman society was dominated by laws, Celto-Germanic society by costum. The average German was more free than the average Roman, because there were no real laws. Laws in Germanic society were more costums, determined by the Thing. It wasn't that official. For example, it was costumary for the first born to inherit the wealth of the family, but not engraved in stone. Social mobility was also more based on indibidual merit than birth or material wealth. The society was very democratic, as any freeman had a voice in the Thing. There weren't that many ''kings'' either. Most of them were warlords who were chosen by the tribes, such as Arminius. And they weren't tolerated for long, Arminius was eventually killed by fellow Germans for his authoritarianism. The Romans really admired the loyalty of the Germans, as their [Germans] entire society was based on it. Interdependence and loyalty to the elders and warriors. Hence why Germanic warriors were frequently recruited by the Romans, as they proved to be more loyal than Roman soldiers, who often cared more about wealth than loyalty.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yes that's kind of my point. I feel like we're still on different pages.

So under roman occupation, your gaul is much less autonomous. And that sets the stage for decline.

Which I gather you would agree with, right? Unless I am still missing something...

[Dr. Croccer]

So under roman occupation, your gaul is much less autonomous.

Gauls weren't that much different than Romans, to be honest. Whilst Celtic society was dominated by costum, loyalty and clans like the Germans', it was also quite organised and more urbanised. Taxes, statehood and permanent leaders were no new things to the Gauls. They were to the Germans, hence the outrage of the latter when the Romans attempted to dominate them.

And that sets the stage for decline.

Well, no. That would imply that Roman rule at all caused decline, and that's very contradictory to the basic fact that Rome conquered most of Europe and was a notable political and economic power for over 1000 years (2000, if you include the Byzantines)

[Farnan]

Actually that Germanic belief in the role of custom can be seen in the concept of Common Law in nations descended from the British.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Perhaps freedom is not really the driving factor in a nation. Perhaps it is social mobility and political weight of a person, group or demographic which allows their acceptance of a situation or the necessary fear from the government not to oppress the subjects of authority. The ultimate achievement of any political system would be for the government to rule justly the inhabitance to live in a just way and for both to maintain the other through mutual defiance against injustice.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yes, you may be right. Not freedom per se. Perhaps responsibility?

As for Gibbon, he is basically saying that once Rome administrated everything and left nothing to the people, they lost their initiative.

So responsibility is probably more accurate. However, freedom and responsibility are ultimately tied so you can see the connection.