NationStates Jolt Archive

Some food for thought from history and a possible lesson for the Republic.

Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
Published: September 30, 2006

IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”

Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”

What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.

But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.

“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”

Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.

Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.

An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.

In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.

It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.

It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.

The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?ex=1159761600&en=17f2c99ae7254bfa&ei=5087%0A

Interesting, I'm not too sharp on my classical history but isn't there ALWAYS someone seizing power or trying to sieze power in ancient Rome?

Interesting, I'm not too sharp on my classical history but isn't there ALWAYS someone seizing power or trying to sieze power in ancient Rome?

He's talking about the first time an emporer seized power from the senate in Rome. When they moved from a senator led republic to an empire with an emperor. Thus changing a several hundred year old government style with a new one. The new one would last for four hundred plus years, but the SOPR was nothing more than symbolic after that.

Meh. I stand by my opinion - the Italians were defeated by the Germans.

I've only compared Rome and the US, both falling to a group of "barbarians" a bagillion and one times.

Meh. I stand by my opinion - the Italians were defeated by the Germans.

I've heard that joke in the reverse before...

"Churchill says to Hitler in 1939: We had the Italians in the last war, it’s only fair that you have to have them in this war…”

Or.

“1939: The new Italian Navy boasts glass bottom boats so that their sailors can be inspired by the sight of the old Italian Navy…”

I've only compared Rome and the US, both falling to a group of "barbarians" a bagillion and one times.

Just to make sure, you do realise that's not what he's on about, right?

I don't think Bush is a Julius Caesar though :p
Caesar lead by example but it seems Bush might get a few knives in his back the way his presidency is unravelling.

I don't think Bush is a Julius Caesar though :p
Caesar lead by example but it seems Bush might get a few knives in his back the way his presidency is unravelling.

I'd like to knife him :)


tee hee hee

Caesar lead by example but it seems Bush might get a few knives in his back the way his presidency is unravelling.
It seems so did Pompey.

But it paved the way for a later Gaius Julius and ultimately Octavian. Chances are that a similar thing could happen here.

It seems so did Pompey.

But it paved the way for a later Gaius Julius and ultimately Octavian. Chances are that a similar thing could happen here.

These days the knives are political but in the old days - they really did use real ones. That's politics - people see a leader failing and they do eventually backstab him while pledging loyalty.

I'd like to knife him :)


tee hee hee

;) You and a lot of people.

I don't think Bush is a Julius Caesar though :p
Caesar lead by example but it seems Bush might get a few knives in his back the way his presidency is unravelling.
It seems so did Pompey.

But it paved the way for a later Gaius Julius and ultimately Octavian. Chances are that a similar thing could happen here.

Reading too much into history is just as bad as ignorance of history. History may repeat itself, but exact repitition isn't likely.

Reading too much into history is just as bad as ignorance of history. History may repeat itself, but exact repitition isn't likely.
Well, if you say there may not be a stronger leadership figure than George who uses the current changes to really rearrange the US Government - then where is the significance of the thread?

Well I think Romes decline was for many reasons then a war on terror.

At the hight of the empire, you could find the aristocracy gladly manning the legions. When it fell, the aristocracy could hire somebody to fill their place.

Rome was still centralizing on legions while the rest of the world saw the value of the mounted warrior. Especially the mounted archer.

Rome saw the cavalry more as a scouting force.

Also the general corruption of the government.....

Well, if you say there may not be a stronger leadership figure than George who uses the current changes to really rearrange the US Government - then where is the significance of the thread?

No, no. I was just saying that assuming the events of the Roman Republic would not likely be repeated exactly. It isn't necessary for Bush to be exactly like Caeser or Pompey.

Well I think Romes decline was for many reasons then a war on terror.

At the hight of the empire, you could find the aristocracy gladly manning the legions. When it fell, the aristocracy could hire somebody to fill their place.

Rome was still centralizing on legions while the rest of the world saw the value of the mounted warrior. Especially the mounted archer.

Rome saw the cavalry more as a scouting force.

Also the general corruption of the government.....

Do I need to put a synopsis up for people who aren't reading the article? Again, the parallels being drawn are not to the fall of the empire, but to the downfall of the Republic and the rise of the Imperial system.

Well I think Romes decline was for many reasons then a war on terror.

At the hight of the empire, you could find the aristocracy gladly manning the legions. When it fell, the aristocracy could hire somebody to fill their place.

Rome was still centralizing on legions while the rest of the world saw the value of the mounted warrior. Especially the mounted archer.

Rome saw the cavalry more as a scouting force.

Also the general corruption of the government.....

This is hundreds of years earlier, the subversion of the Roman Republic, not the fall of the Empire.

Well I think Romes decline was for many reasons then a war on terror.

At the hight of the empire, you could find the aristocracy gladly manning the legions. When it fell, the aristocracy could hire somebody to fill their place.

Rome was still centralizing on legions while the rest of the world saw the value of the mounted warrior. Especially the mounted archer.

Rome saw the cavalry more as a scouting force.

Also the general corruption of the government.....Now that you mention it, the current situation sounds even more like ancient Rome.

Do I need to put a synopsis up for people who aren't reading the article? Again, the parallels being drawn are not to the fall of the empire, but to the downfall of the Republic and the rise of the Imperial system.
By the way, I agree completely. I thought the same when I read the article earlier today, and if I hadn't been grading essays all day, would have posted it with much the same argument.

Now that you mention it, the current situation sounds even more like ancient Rome.

Isn't it past your bed time ;)


But yeah, its wierd how everything plays over the same way, again, and again, and again. Its like...History repeats itself or something :p

Isn't it past your bed time ;)


But yeah, its wierd how everything plays over the same way, again, and again, and again. Its like...History repeats itself or something :p

It is, actually--2:30 a.m. and I've got to have breakfast with the in-laws in 7 hours. Even when you've got a steady gig, you never pass up a free meal. ;)

It is, actually--2:30 a.m. and I've got to have breakfast with the in-laws in 7 hours. Even when you've got a steady gig, you never pass up a free meal. ;)



So no sleep AND the inlaws? Man you DO have big cajunas :p

Somehow, I don't think the Germanians opposed the Romans because of their free lifestyles, like the muslims oppose the West today.

I wonder if the Romans tapped the carrier pigeons?

Somehow, I don't think the Germanians opposed the Romans because of their free lifestyles, like the muslims oppose the West today.
lol

Interesting parallel there.
Can't quite see the general coming home loaded with plunder and tributes from the Middle East, though, to claim their Triumph and the Presidency. Haliburton don't quite fit the bill: their plunder comes from the Federal Budget.

The last King who ruled over the landmass of the USA is King George III of England. The current president is George who is son of another president named George.

All hail King George W Bush!

The last King who ruled over the landmass of the USA is King George III of England. The current president is George who is son of another president named George.

All hail King George W Bush!
Does that make Daley a Duke or something?

Does that make Daley a Duke or something?

All US politicians act like they some kind of elite social class. They may not have royal or other titles but they sure act that away.

All US politicians act like they some kind of elite social class. They may not have royal or other titles but they sure act that away.
Meh. I don’t notice executives acting much differently, nor do I see foreign politicians differing in their behavior either. Elites will be elites.

Meh. I don’t notice executives acting much differently, nor do I see foreign politicians differing in their behavior either. Elites will be elites.

We may not have Kings or Dukes, just their replacements called politicians. Company executives are pretty bad too. At least they can get fired, unlike the old days where you have kill someone to get rid of them.

There's a couple problems with the analogy presented in the OP;

a) Dictatorial powers in Rome predate Pompey Magnus. Lucius Cornelius Sulla seized the city of Rome by force of Arms prior to that, and set himself up as dictator and went on a bloody rampage, killing all of his opponents in order to pay the costs of civil war (and fund his war with Pontus.) That is Caesar's precedent. If there was a reason for a fall of the republic, it was that in the time of Gaius Marius, the senate allowed rich senators to pay for legions out of thier own pocket.

b) Pompey Magnus fought all of his battles with overwhelming numbers. He was a tactical and strategic clacissist, and rarely came up with something ingenious. Julius Caesar defeated him in Greece precisely because of this. He was calling himself Magnus before his first major victories. He allied himself with Sulla during Sulla's rise to power in return for being called 'magnus' by the dicatator. His strategy for defeating the pirates was the same; lots and lots of men and resources, and a roll-em'up campaign. His use of those soldiers to pacify states in asia minor was just good old fashion roman tradition.

c) Rome, despite all of the romantic notions of Republicanism, was hardly a model for democracy. For starters, only the citizens of Rome itself could vote, and not any of the provinces (although later, after a brutal civil war in the Italian peninsula, some Italians could vote as well.) Secondly, all of the major decisions were decided in the Senate, which were dominated by landed and traditional powers. They could be vetoed by a Tribune of the Plebs, however the Plebian Assembly was often a riot of competing factions who decided things with clubs, knives and fisticuffs. More entertaining than watching modern parliamentary debate for sure, but not better.

The Roman Republic fell the moment Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Although I believe he was working at reforming it, the ability for rival powers to raise their own armies, and the need for politicians to raise large sums of money to gain office (followed by using armies to plunder nearby nations) led to the downfall of any notion of peacable negotiation between factions in Rome. Although Caesar had Sulla as a precedent for seizing power, Caesar's decision not to execute his enemies led him to eventually take the position 'dictator for life', and this obvioulsy led to his eventual assassination, which led to yet another civil war. Octavius (later Augustus) did the right thing by making himself supreme ruler and bringing peace to the empire.

Drawing comparisons to Pompey's 'war on terrorism', is inaccurate, lacking in knowledge of previous Roman precendent, and misleading to the modern reader. In order for a fall of the American Republic, in the manner in which Caesar caused the fall of his, Generals would have to have massive support from their own troops, and the ability to pay them out of their own pocket. I doubt you would find a majority of American troops who would march on the capital because one ambitious general was sponsored by Microsoft and the troops were making an extra buck. Things in the US are overall pretty good.

He's talking about the first time an emporer seized power from the senate in Rome. When they moved from a senator led republic to an empire with an emperor. Thus changing a several hundred year old government style with a new one. The new one would last for four hundred plus years, but the SOPR was nothing more than symbolic after that.

The problem is that it isn't the first time. Sulla predates Pompey's war on piracy, and Pompey didn't hold on to those powers forever. So claiming that the Lex Gabinia led to the downfall of Rome is a false comparison.

So no sleep AND the inlaws? Man you DO have big cajunas :p

In-laws can be a lot easier to deal with if you're inclined to sleep through it.

Somehow, I don't think the Germanians opposed the Romans because of their free lifestyles, like the muslims oppose the West today.

The muslims of today do NOT oppose us because of our free lifestyles. They don't give a damn about how we live here. They don't like that we keep destabalizing their region of the world. You know... doing things like overthrowing their governments (thats governmentssss. Plural. We've done it repeatedly) manipulating their economies, and subjecting them to dictatorial murderers because we find them convenient.

The Muslims of today oppose us for just the same reason the Germanians opposed Rome. They see us as a threat that they can do little about.

There's a couple problems with the analogy presented in the OP;

a) Dictatorial powers in Rome predate Pompey Magnus. Lucius Cornelius Sulla seized the city of Rome by force of Arms prior to that, and set himself up as dictator and went on a bloody rampage, killing all of his opponents in order to pay the costs of civil war (and fund his war with Pontus.) That is Caesar's precedent. If there was a reason for a fall of the republic, it was that in the time of Gaius Marius, the senate allowed rich senators to pay for legions out of thier own pocket.

b) Pompey Magnus fought all of his battles with overwhelming numbers. He was a tactical and strategic clacissist, and rarely came up with something ingenious. Julius Caesar defeated him in Greece precisely because of this. He was calling himself Magnus before his first major victories. He allied himself with Sulla during Sulla's rise to power in return for being called 'magnus' by the dicatator. His strategy for defeating the pirates was the same; lots and lots of men and resources, and a roll-em'up campaign. His use of those soldiers to pacify states in asia minor was just good old fashion roman tradition.

c) Rome, despite all of the romantic notions of Republicanism, was hardly a model for democracy. For starters, only the citizens of Rome itself could vote, and not any of the provinces (although later, after a brutal civil war in the Italian peninsula, some Italians could vote as well.) Secondly, all of the major decisions were decided in the Senate, which were dominated by landed and traditional powers. They could be vetoed by a Tribune of the Plebs, however the Plebian Assembly was often a riot of competing factions who decided things with clubs, knives and fisticuffs. More entertaining than watching modern parliamentary debate for sure, but not better.

The Roman Republic fell the moment Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Although I believe he was working at reforming it, the ability for rival powers to raise their own armies, and the need for politicians to raise large sums of money to gain office (followed by using armies to plunder nearby nations) led to the downfall of any notion of peacable negotiation between factions in Rome. Although Caesar had Sulla as a precedent for seizing power, Caesar's decision not to execute his enemies led him to eventually take the position 'dictator for life', and this obvioulsy led to his eventual assassination, which led to yet another civil war. Octavius (later Augustus) did the right thing by making himself supreme ruler and bringing peace to the empire.

Drawing comparisons to Pompey's 'war on terrorism', is inaccurate, lacking in knowledge of previous Roman precendent, and misleading to the modern reader. In order for a fall of the American Republic, in the manner in which Caesar caused the fall of his, Generals would have to have massive support from their own troops, and the ability to pay them out of their own pocket. I doubt you would find a majority of American troops who would march on the capital because one ambitious general was sponsored by Microsoft and the troops were making an extra buck. Things in the US are overall pretty good.
Thumbs up. :cool:

The Muslims of today oppose us for just the same reason the Germanians opposed Rome. They see us as a threat that they can do little about.
Germanians? :confused:

You mean the Roman Empire didnt fall because they used lead in thier plumbing piping and drinking goblets?

There's a couple problems with the analogy presented in the OP;

a) Dictatorial powers in Rome predate Pompey Magnus. Lucius Cornelius Sulla seized the city of Rome by force of Arms prior to that, and set himself up as dictator and went on a bloody rampage, killing all of his opponents in order to pay the costs of civil war (and fund his war with Pontus.) That is Caesar's precedent. If there was a reason for a fall of the republic, it was that in the time of Gaius Marius, the senate allowed rich senators to pay for legions out of thier own pocket.

b) Pompey Magnus fought all of his battles with overwhelming numbers. He was a tactical and strategic clacissist, and rarely came up with something ingenious. Julius Caesar defeated him in Greece precisely because of this. He was calling himself Magnus before his first major victories. He allied himself with Sulla during Sulla's rise to power in return for being called 'magnus' by the dicatator. His strategy for defeating the pirates was the same; lots and lots of men and resources, and a roll-em'up campaign. His use of those soldiers to pacify states in asia minor was just good old fashion roman tradition.

c) Rome, despite all of the romantic notions of Republicanism, was hardly a model for democracy. For starters, only the citizens of Rome itself could vote, and not any of the provinces (although later, after a brutal civil war in the Italian peninsula, some Italians could vote as well.) Secondly, all of the major decisions were decided in the Senate, which were dominated by landed and traditional powers. They could be vetoed by a Tribune of the Plebs, however the Plebian Assembly was often a riot of competing factions who decided things with clubs, knives and fisticuffs. More entertaining than watching modern parliamentary debate for sure, but not better.

The Roman Republic fell the moment Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Although I believe he was working at reforming it, the ability for rival powers to raise their own armies, and the need for politicians to raise large sums of money to gain office (followed by using armies to plunder nearby nations) led to the downfall of any notion of peacable negotiation between factions in Rome. Although Caesar had Sulla as a precedent for seizing power, Caesar's decision not to execute his enemies led him to eventually take the position 'dictator for life', and this obvioulsy led to his eventual assassination, which led to yet another civil war. Octavius (later Augustus) did the right thing by making himself supreme ruler and bringing peace to the empire.

Drawing comparisons to Pompey's 'war on terrorism', is inaccurate, lacking in knowledge of previous Roman precendent, and misleading to the modern reader. In order for a fall of the American Republic, in the manner in which Caesar caused the fall of his, Generals would have to have massive support from their own troops, and the ability to pay them out of their own pocket. I doubt you would find a majority of American troops who would march on the capital because one ambitious general was sponsored by Microsoft and the troops were making an extra buck. Things in the US are overall pretty good.

Oh for sure, the analogy isn't a perfect fit. As I said above, trying to read the history too closely is just as bad as ignoring it.

You mean the Roman Empire didnt fall because they used lead in thier plumbing piping and drinking goblets?

:headbang:

Germanians? :confused:

I don't like to refer to pre-HRE inhabitants of Germania as Germans.

The muslims of today do NOT oppose us because of our free lifestyles. They don't give a damn about how we live here. They don't like that we keep destabalizing their region of the world. You know... doing things like overthrowing their governments (thats governmentssss. Plural. We've done it repeatedly) manipulating their economies, and subjecting them to dictatorial murderers because we find them convenient..

Well, no. Have you listened to Al-Qaeda's tapes? Convert to islam or die. They just don't like the way we live and want to force us to change that.

Originally Posted by Mikesburg

The Roman Republic fell the moment Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Although I believe he was working at reforming it, the ability for rival powers to raise their own armies, and the need for politicians to raise large sums of money to gain office (followed by using armies to plunder nearby nations) led to the downfall of any notion of peacable negotiation between factions in Rome. Although Caesar had Sulla as a precedent for seizing power, Caesar's decision not to execute his enemies led him to eventually take the position 'dictator for life', and this obvioulsy led to his eventual assassination, which led to yet another civil war. Octavius (later Augustus) did the right thing by making himself supreme ruler and bringing peace to the empire.

In my opinion, yes and no.

A: The "need" for politicians to raise large sums of money to gain office had been a tradition of Roman senators for quite nearly the entirety of the existence of the Republic. Millions of sesterces went into bribery, increasing senatorial influence and the purchasing of tame Tribunes of the Plebs yearly. Many senators made their careers off of being purchased for one reason or another, depending on the lifespan and goals of the ones purchasing them. The Roman Republic was always rather corrupt and slipshod in its form -- conversely, that's what helped it run smoothly in the days before Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

B: It is difficult to say that Caesar's act of crossing the Rubicon itself was the downfall of the Republic; I would be more inclined to say that the death of Caesar himself was the catalyst. He was definitely on the road to reforming the Republic, but in the process had to accumulate so much power to himself and contravene the usual laws so that, when he was killed, there was an incredible power vacuum that people like Marcus Antonius and Gaius Octavius (Octavian, Augustus) couldn't resist. There was no way that Rome could fall back into place after Caesar's death because so much had changed and there were so many opportunities for the ambitious to acquire more power that it couldn't possibly snap back to its old Republican way. I make this point because Lucius Cornelius Sulla accumulated power as Caesar did, but was allowed to finish his work and eventually stepped down as Dictator; his work filled in the gaps in the government that he had to fill in order for 1: the government to work on its own again, and 2: there to be no power vacuum after his departure, since there was no room for any. One was attempted, but it failed quickly. Had Caesar been allowed to finish his work, considering the immense intelligence of the man, it can be hypothesized with a reasonable amount of security that Rome would've returned to its Republican ways.

Except for that little part, I agree with the rest. The American political system has far too many checks and balances, as well as the nigh unstoppable weight and momentum of Constitutionalism, to allow one man to contravene the usual government and gather all the power to himself. Is the system of checks and balances in the American Constitution failing? To a degree -- it generally always fails to a degree when all three branches of government are of the same political party. Even Bush's own political party, however, would not countenance nor support a Dictator Perpetuus. The amount of money, power, charisma and brilliance one would need to do what Sulla or Caesar did in America would be staggering.

Bush doesn't have ANY of those... most especially the last two. *grin*

I don't think Bush is a Julius Caesar though :p
Caesar lead by example but it seems Bush might get a few knives in his back the way his presidency is unravelling.

Bush does fit with Pompey though. He's got the bureaucratic incompetence and strategic problems in common with him.

We don't need any historical analogies to know what is happening in the U.S. is very dangerous. But perhaps the blind who do not see what is happening here could use this to wake up to the fact that Bush and his allies are people who should be taken out of power as soon as possible.

Many here seem to be under the impression that Julius Caeser was the first Roman Dictator who took power by force, and became a tyrant. However as great as Julius Caeser was there was someone else who did it first. As a matter of fact Caeser copied Lucius Cornelius Sulla, in how he took power. Not very imaginative or original our Julius is he.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla

Oh for sure, the analogy isn't a perfect fit. As I said above, trying to read the history too closely is just as bad as ignoring it.

My problem with the analogy is that it tries to paint the picture that Rome was a model of constitutionalism and repbulicanism, with everything 'hunky-dory' until a mass act of 'terrorism' spawned a law which led to the downfall of the Republic. I believe the author is really stretching his historical source to fit a modern political issue.

The US is not going through anything like Rome had gone through prior to the Lex Gabinia, including; Civil War in Italy, Massive Barbarian Invasions from German hordes, Rebellions in Africa, An invasion from Pontus, A tyrant seizing Rome by force for the first time in its Republican state, multiple slave rebellions with one very aggressive one led by Spartacus, etc. All of this happened within the span of a couple of generations, so Rome was not a happy place.

The US has certainly seen it's share of wars in an equivalent time period, but nothing quite so disturbing at home.

My point is that the modern political issue raised by the OP is easily judged on its own merits, and doesn't need a rather contrived historical analogy to justify it. (Although I liked the article, and pretty much anything Rome based.)

In my opinion, yes and no.

A: The "need" for politicians to raise large sums of money to gain office had been a tradition of Roman senators for quite nearly the entirety of the existence of the Republic. Millions of sesterces went into bribery, increasing senatorial influence and the purchasing of tame Tribunes of the Plebs yearly. Many senators made their careers off of being purchased for one reason or another, depending on the lifespan and goals of the ones purchasing them. The Roman Republic was always rather corrupt and slipshod in its form -- conversely, that's what helped it run smoothly in the days before Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

You won't find me arguing with you there. My point was that by the time Marius was hiring troops on his own dime, and from the 'head count', the loyalty of the average soldier shifted from hearth and home to 'the guy who pays the bills and fights the bare-arsed savages with us'. Instrumental in the downfall of the Republic, much more-so than the Lex Gabinia.



B: It is difficult to say that Caesar's act of crossing the Rubicon itself was the downfall of the Republic; I would be more inclined to say that the death of Caesar himself was the catalyst. He was definitely on the road to reforming the Republic, but in the process had to accumulate so much power to himself and contravene the usual laws so that, when he was killed, there was an incredible power vacuum that people like Marcus Antonius and Gaius Octavius (Octavian, Augustus) couldn't resist. There was no way that Rome could fall back into place after Caesar's death because so much had changed and there were so many opportunities for the ambitious to acquire more power that it couldn't possibly snap back to its old Republican way. I make this point because Lucius Cornelius Sulla accumulated power as Caesar did, but was allowed to finish his work and eventually stepped down as Dictator; his work filled in the gaps in the government that he had to fill in order for 1: the government to work on its own again, and 2: there to be no power vacuum after his departure, since there was no room for any. One was attempted, but it failed quickly. Had Caesar been allowed to finish his work, considering the immense intelligence of the man, it can be hypothesized with a reasonable amount of security that Rome would've returned to its Republican ways.


Except for that little part, I agree with the rest. The American political system has far too many checks and balances, as well as the nigh unstoppable weight and momentum of Constitutionalism, to allow one man to contravene the usual government and gather all the power to himself. Is the system of checks and balances in the American Constitution failing? To a degree -- it generally always fails to a degree when all three branches of government are of the same political party. Even Bush's own political party, however, would not countenance nor support a Dictator Perpetuus. The amount of money, power, charisma and brilliance one would need to do what Sulla or Caesar did in America would be staggering.

Bush doesn't have ANY of those... most especially the last two. *grin*

I generally agree. It's hard to really pinpoint a time, but the moment Caesar assumed the mantle 'dictator for life', it was pretty much over. And as to the American vs. Roman political systems, you're bang on.

Many here seem to be under the impression that Julius Caeser was the first Roman Dictator who took power by force, and became a tyrant. However as great as Julius Caeser was there was someone else who did it first. As a matter of fact Caeser copied Lucius Cornelius Sulla, in how he took power. Not very imaginative or original our Julius is he.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla

Old Hairy did a better job of it, though.

Rome brought upon us probably the largest bloodshed Christianity has inflicted upon the world to this day.

They deserved to fall and fall they did.

Forget the Rome, lets put it this simple: If you give all nations power to a fool then you are surely doomed.