Steve Jackson Games Forums - Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- Roleplaying in General (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - Roman revivalists... in [Space] (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=68517)

Agemegos

04-06-2010 03:41 AM

Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Suppose it's about AD 2164. The Earth a bit overpopulated and slightly run-down, and setting up utopias in orbital habitats and Moon colonies has run into snags (they are hard places for any high degree of individual liberty). Terraforming Mars &c. is going to take centuries at least. There's a lot of conflict about: high-tech weapons, even high-tech improvised weapons, in a crowded world with worldwide news and communications make for a lot of scary stories in the news. And defence and security precautions have become irksome, even oppressive.

Suppose further that about 70 years ago a bunch of space enthusiasts used a one-way 'just-as-fast-as-light' gadget to found a colony at Tau Ceti. Since then there has been a small but steady exodus, and a total of 23 colonies have been established by a range of different enterprises from the government of China to the New Vinland Company by way of a splinter group of the international Scouting Movement. As yet the total emigration rate has been small: 10,000 people per year, or one in 1.5 million of the world's population. But recently (AD 2159) news arrived from the Tau Ceti colony that in 2147 its population had reached 100,000, and it had founded a university. Emigrating suddenly seems like not such as completely mad idea as all that.

Prolepsis: the two paragraphs preceding are background, not themselves what I want to discuss. Okay?

A bunch of admirers of the ancient Roman Republic decide to found a political utopia, and buy the colonisation rights to a habitable planet orbiting CD -37°10500 A.

Now, these people may be crackpots, but they aren't stupid. They are admirers of some Roman institutions, particularly the cursus honorum and the non-incumbency principle. But they are aware that the republican constitution had defects which led to the fall of the republic. Also, no-one is going there involuntarily, so the plebs are going to insist on constitutional protections. So naturally they believe that they have worked out what went wrong with Rome, and have adopted a mended version of the constitution of the Roman Republic. These enthusiasts are by no means all scholars, but they include some scholars, and are inspired by the work of scholars.

Question: What version of the Roman constitution are these enthusiasts likely to take as their starting-point? That is, what was the pinnacle of Roman constitutional development from a modern point of view?

Question: What are the main defects in that constitution, and how are our friends going to repair them?

Naturally, the project isn't going to work, and there will be tears before bedtime. But the plan has to be plausible enough to attract an average of 200 self-funding volunteers per year at least until the news gets back of how it has gone wrong.

Please, please, I beg. Do not de-rail this thread into a discussion of the American republic. Please?

Agemegos

04-06-2010 04:10 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

System stats

Code:

Primary star

Name of star:  CD -37°10500

system number: 25             companion stars: 1

class of star: G6 V            1. mass: 1.60         periapsis:      8.4 AU

mass:          0.9    M_         class: white dwarf    apapsis:     19.6 AU

luminosity:    0.80   L_                          

age:           9      Gya.                          

diameter:      0.0092 AU     



Planets & moons

ID#     orbit radius    world type                  size  mass   grav. atmosphere              hydrograph.  temp. climate   solar day Hab. RVM  Affinity

        (AU)(10,000 km)                             (D♁)  (M♁)   (g.)                                       (C)             (hours)

I         0.15          small rock planet            0.85   0.44  0.60 none                                  370  infernal  infinite    0    0    0

II        0.30          standard greenhouse planet   1.3    1.9   1.1  superdense corrosive    20% water     756  infernal  infinite   -2    0   -2

III       0.52          standard greenhouse planet   0.64   0.26  0.64 superdense corrosive                  629  infernal  infinite   -2    0   -2

IV        0.72          standard garden planet       1.0    0.93  0.91 standard marginal       70% water       51 very hot     26.6     5   -1    4

V         1.2           standard garden planet       0.73   0.34  0.65 thin marginal           100% water     -28 very cold     7.72    1    0    1

          2.0           asteroid belt                                                                         -91 frozen                0   -1   -1

VI        6.1           medium gas giant            10    200     2.0  superdense corrosive                                    58.6               

                        7 moonlets                                                                           -170 frozen                0    0    0

VIa                38   tiny sulfur moon             0.07   0.00  0.03 none                                  -191 frozen       46.4    -1    0   -1

VIb                45   standard ice moon            0.54   0.17  0.59 standard mildly toxic                 -154 frozen       58.6    -1    0   -1

VIc                54   small ice moon               0.38   0.03  0.19 very dense mildly toxic 50% h'carb.   -163 frozen       78.7    -1    0   -1

VId                64   small ice moon               0.51   0.04  0.15 very dense mildly toxic 30% h'carb.   -162 frozen       99.5    -1    0   -1

                        6 moonlets                                                                           -170 frozen                0    0    0

Planet stats

Code:

System number:    25     "CD -37°10500"

Planet:           IV     "New Rome"

Planetology

class of star:    G6 V

mean distance:    0.72    AU

  perihelion:     0.72    AU

  aphelion:       0.73    AU

axial tilt:       25°

annual period:    0.649   years

                  213.7   local days

local day:        26 h. 38'

                          

standard garden planet

diameter:         1.0     x Earth's

                  12,889  km

density:          0.9     x Earth's

                  5.0     g/cm^3

surface gravity:  0.91    g.

                  8.9     m/s^2

escape velocity:  10.7    km/s

vulcanism :       light

atmosphere

climate:          very hot

temperature       

  average:        51      C

  periphelion:    53      C

  aphelion:       50      C

illumination:     146%    x Earth's

oceans:           70%

  composition:    water

  tidal range:    1.6     m

atmosphere        

  main gases:     N2, O2

  traces &c.:     high O2

  class:          marginal

  pressure:       1.1     bar  (standard)



Sun & moons                                 apparent ...        tide induced

                  class                     size    period

       sun:       G6 V                      0.73°   26.6 hr         1.6   m

Generated using the star system generation sequence from GURS Space and significant house rules.

Copyright ©2010 Brett Evill

sir_pudding

04-06-2010 04:18 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

It might be worthwhile to identify what the founders saw as the causes of the fall of the Roman Republic as they would take special care to ensure their constitution has protections against them. Also did they revive Republican Roman religion, or merely the secular institutions?

And are you are telling me now, that Bucky could have been actual Legionnaire prior to enlisting in the Marines? Ah man.

Agemegos

04-06-2010 04:51 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 962874)

It might be worthwhile to identify what the founders saw as the causes of the fall of the Roman Republic as they would take special care to ensure their constitution has protections against them.

Exactly so.

I studied the history of Rome "from the Gracchi to Nero" in high school, but that was 1981 and (though I went to a school with respectable academics) it was only a high school class. So I'd be very interested in the opinions of those people on the forums who have made a deeper study than I.

Quote:

Also did they revive Republican Roman religion, or merely the secular institutions?

I can't really see reviving the religion as credible. How would they make themselves believe it?

Quote:

And are you are telling me now, that Bucky could have been actual Legionnaire prior to enlisting in the Marines? Ah man.

Umm. No?
Actually, my model does New Rome not dropping below GURPS TL 7, so any possible legionnaireity could be no more than nominal.

sir_pudding

04-06-2010 04:59 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 962881)

I can't really see reviving the religion as credible. How would they make themselves believe it?

I don't know, how does anybody make themselves believe anything? Yet even so men persist in making gods. If a second rate hack of a science fiction writer can invent a wealthy organized Church in the 20th century, or 19th century romantics revive a syncretic neo-gaelic druidism, or a 19th century professional treasure hunter can "discover" the forgotten history of the lost tribe of Israel in rural Missouri and leverage it into a powerful world religion all in the era of mass communication, the scientific method, and post enlightenment secular society, then it seems to me people can pretty much convince themselves to believe anything. I don't find a syncretic neo-Roman paganism any less plausible than the real life examples of syncretic religious movements.

Captain-Captain

04-06-2010 05:07 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 962866)

Suppose it's about AD 2164. The Earth a bit overpopulated and slightly run-down, and setting up utopias in orbital habitats and Moon colonies has run into snags (they are hard places for any high degree of individual liberty). Terraforming Mars &c. is going to take centuries at least. There's a lot of conflict about: high-tech weapons, even high-tech improvised weapons, in a crowded world with worldwide news and communications make for a lot of scary stories in the news. And defence and security precautions have become irksome, even oppressive.

Suppose further that about 70 years ago a bunch of space enthusiasts used a one-way 'just-as-fast-as-light' gadget to found a colony at Tau Ceti. Since then there has been a small but steady exodus, and a total of 23 colonies have been established by a range of different enterprises from the government of China to the New Vinland Company by way of a splinter group of the international Scouting Movement. As yet the total emigration rate has been small: 10,000 people per year, or one in 1.5 million of the world's population. But recently (AD 2159) news arrived from the Tau Ceti colony that in 2147 its population had reached 100,000, and it had founded a university. Emigrating suddenly seems like not such as completely mad idea as all that.

Prolepsis: the two paragraphs preceding are background, not themselves what I want to discuss. Okay?

A bunch of admirers of the ancient Roman Republic decide to found a political utopia, and buy the colonisation rights to a habitable planet orbiting CD -37°10500 A.

Now, these people may be crackpots, but they aren't stupid. They are admirers of some Roman institutions, particularly the cursus honorum and the non-incumbency principle. But they are aware that the republican constitution had defects which led to the fall of the republic. Also, no-one is going there involuntarily, so the plebs are going to insist on constitutional protections. So naturally they believe that they have worked out what went wrong with Rome, and have adopted a mended version of the constitution of the Roman Republic. These enthusiasts are by no means all scholars, but they include some scholars, and are inspired by the work of scholars.

Question: What version of the Roman constitution are these enthusiasts likely to take as their starting-point? That is, what was the pinnacle of Roman constitutional development from a modern point of view?

Question: What are the main defects in that constitution, and how are our friends going to repair them?

Naturally, the project isn't going to work, and there will be tears before bedtime. But the plan has to be plausible enough to attract an average of 200 self-funding volunteers per year at least until the news gets back of how it has gone wrong.

Please, please, I beg. Do not de-rail this thread into a discussion of the American republic. Please?

I thinkd the biggest "flaw" here is you've established it is expensive, time consuming and produces limited results for Governments and megacorps to build colony sustaining vessels in near orbit around Earth or other convenient spots in the Solar system, but a buch of Hobbyists engaged in a not that popular hobby have the budget to go establish a colony in the Tau Ceti system?

One would expect lots of immigration from the near dictatorial local Habitats.

You need a serious drawback to discourage lots and lots of other folks filling up the Tau Ceti system and turning your future Rome into 'Just anudder tourist trap'.

My suggestion: I'm stealing from an 80s cartoon here, "Silverhawks". In it, EVERY person who traveled from Earth to the system the story takes place in is a cyborg. It's stated fully human travelers die in transit. Cyborging is the only way to get across the stars.

Similar situation: Your 'Romans' are people who've voluntarily had their brains encased in a life support jar and the jars hooked into robotic bodies that protect the brains from whatever kills humans otherwise. Human cells are shipped for quickening purposes to populate the new colony, but it's a lower priority for Earth since this project does not significantly relieve Population Pressure problems. It's a fail safe for the continuation of humanity if the solar system goes nuclear bonkers.

Their "day job" is prepping the new world for occupation. The shrinks who approved the project realized the need for recreation and people engaged in a long term shared recreation such as living in a Roman Empire meets those needs quite well. However, they and most of the other re-creationist recreationists are leery of those dice rollers on that other space station. :)

Agemegos

04-06-2010 05:21 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain (Post 962885)

Not the bit I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I'll just say that for governments and megacorporations the problem is repatriating any benefits, given lightspeed transportation. All the benefits of migration under such constraints accrue strictly to the actual emigrants, and you can't expect governments of megacorps to pour money down a hole for very long. With them out of the picture "expensive" is compared to the resources of those enthusiasts who wish to emigration.

My timeline involves four governments founding space colonies in the 2120s. The first and nearest was the Chinese colony Xin Tiân Di, at 36 Ophiuchi B. That's 19.5 light-years away, which means that with the first ship launched in 2120 the news of their arrival would come to Earth until 2159. The program swallows money, ships, and selected people for 39 years before producing its first results. Enthusiasm won't last so long.

If you'd like to take this up I'd prefer that you not do so in this thread. Perhaps you could start another.

Agemegos

04-06-2010 05:24 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 962883)

I don't find a syncretic neo-Roman paganism any less plausible than the real life examples of syncretic religious movements.

True. Now that you remind me I recall that I once spent an entire party chatting to a woman who professed herself a worshipper of Artemis. Nevertheless, it is not a direction I am keen to go. Though I guess it would give players an easy handle on characterisation. I'll think about it.

sir_pudding

04-06-2010 05:33 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 962891)

True. Now that you remind my I recall that I once spent an entire party chatting to a woman who professed herself a worshipper of Artemis. Nevertheless, it is not a direction I am keen to go. Though I guess it would give players an easy handle on characterisation. I'll think about it.

Perhaps this is because I live on the strange fae twilight boundary of Hollyweird and I personally know more people who follow a faith invented in the last 200 years or less than in any of the more established religions, but I actually find a political and cultural revival of Rome without at least an attempt at neo-pagan revival less plausible than the alternative.

Cornelius

04-06-2010 06:01 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 962866)

Question: What version of the Roman constitution are these enthusiasts likely to take as their starting-point? That is, what was the pinnacle of Roman constitutional development from a modern point of view?

Question: What are the main defects in that constitution, and how are our friends going to repair them?

Question 1: I would say the republic after Sulla's reforms, just before the institution of triumvirate. The consulate of Cicero, just to toss a well known name.

Question 2: The roman "constituion" had several flaws if we compare it to ours. Just to start romans didn't have a constitution in the modern sense of the term, but more a set of laws limited and defined by the "mos maiorum". One of the major flaw would be the overpower of rich classes over the poor ones. But I think that your colonist would stick to a "vanilla" version of roman republic than the true version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 962866)

Please, please, I beg. Do not de-rail this thread into a discussion of the American republic. Please?

I would never, I swear on Jovis Optimus himself.

Icelander

04-06-2010 05:31 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornelius (Post 962903)

Question 1: I would say the republic after Sulla's reforms, just before the institution of triumvirate. The consulate of Cicero, just to toss a well known name.

Just so.

The flaws with the republic at that time had little to do with the unwritten constitution and much to do with a state of constant warfare. Sure, there were flaws that would need to be accounted for, but it might be possible to make a society closely resembling Rome with high-technology replacing slaves and the absence of wars preventing individuals from assembling a power base to challenge the constitution.

And note that being a 'pleb' at that time was not a terrible fate and that most of the ruling class were plebs. Allowing a bunch of ultra-rich or ultra-necessary founders to have 'patrician' privileges for their families would not be an unreasonable concession for most of the people who were interested in going in the first place.

Hans Rancke-Madsen

04-06-2010 06:26 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Well, if Colleen McCullough got it right, the biggest flaw wasn't the constitution as such, but the hardening attitude of the aristocracy. The addition of talented "new men" to the senate was constitutionally possible, since anyone who was elected consul automatically ennobled his line. Which towards the end made the established aristocracy extremely reluctant to allow any new man to be elected to any office that might give him the popularity (and riches) to be elected consul. Only the very most talented new man had any chance to surpass the most bungling noble. They tolerated Marius for just as long as they needed him and then turned on him. Cicero made it because he was brilliant and because he aligned himself completely with the boni.

One big problem was the loyalty of the soldiers to individual generals. Preventing successful generals from being a source of patronage would be a top priority for a Revised Roman Constitution. That means the state provides the soldiers with pay and pensions, NOT the generals.

Somewhere in one of John Maddox S.P.Q.R. series of whodunnits the protagonist (a minor (fictional) Metellus) has a conversation with his father where he explains what he thinks would be necessary to save the Republic. He'll never say so in public, of course, since it would get him killed. Unfortunately, I can't locate the passage. I'll try to have another look tomorrow.

Hans

Agemegos

04-06-2010 06:31 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen (Post 963218)

Somewhere in one of John Maddox S.P.Q.R. series of whodunnits the protagonist (a minor (fictional) Metellus) has a conversation with his father where he explains what he thinks would be necessary to save the Republic. He'll never say so in public, of course, since it would get him killed. Unfortunately, I can't locate the passage. I'll try to have another look tomorrow.

Thank you. That would be very helpful.

Icelander

04-06-2010 06:32 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen (Post 963218)

Well, the enormous amounts of money needed to run for office, combined with the constitutional ban on Senators actually engaging in activities which earned money (as opposed to inheriting it), might constitute a 'problem' with the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen (Post 963218)

One big problem was the loyalty of the soldiers to individual generals. Preventing successful generals from being a source of patronage would be a top priority for a Revised Roman Constitution. That means the state provides the soldiers with pay and pensions, NOT the generals.

Well, we might well be able to postulate no enemies, hence no army, no generals, successful or otherwise, and no men with which to rise against the state.

David Johnston2

04-08-2010 08:32 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 962893)

It's perfectly credible for them to be more inspired by neo-pagan philosphical revival though. As in they could be wanna-be Stoics.

Agemegos

04-08-2010 09:02 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 964473)

It's perfectly credible for them to be more inspired by neo-pagan philosphical revival though. As in they could be wanna-be Stoics.

Good suggestion! I like!

David Johnston2

04-11-2010 07:49 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

As to reasons why someone would think the Roman Republic failed some that come to mind are:

Poor plebeians losing control over their part of the government to plebeians who were aristocrats in every way except their technical classification.

Constant warfare and a political system in which leading successful armies was essential to rising to the top. (And with that, letting civilian politicians personally lead armies)

The use of execution as a means of resolving political power struggles.

How those problems would be resolved in theory by the neo-Romans is left as an exercise for the student.

David Johnston2

04-13-2010 12:49 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

OK, I'll take a crack at.

One approach to the plebeian aristocrats teaming up with the patricians and shutting out the actual commoners would be to automatically define everyone over a certain level of net worth as a "patrician".

The warfare problem can be handled by simple isolation. As long as the colonists believe that they will be in unquestioned control of their planet with any new immigrants slotted into the existing society, and no fear of interstellar invasion, they don't have to worry about the militarization of their government.

The execution thing can be approached through an actual bill of rights guaranteeing things like freedom of speech, and a presumption of innocence.

Agemegos

04-14-2010 01:24 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 966667)

OK, I'll take a crack at.

Excellent! Thank you.

Quote:

One approach to the plebeian aristocrats teaming up with the patricians and shutting out the actual commoners would be to automatically define everyone over a certain level of net worth as a "patrician".

Thus creating (or plausibly seeming to create, which is good enough) a republic protected against plutocracy by reserving certain office and powers to the poor.

Quote:

The warfare problem can be handled by simple isolation. As long as the colonists believe that they will be in unquestioned control of their planet with any new immigrants slotted into the existing society, and no fear of interstellar invasion, they don't have to worry about the militarization of their government.

Good. I particularly like the reservations!

Would there need to be any sort of adjustment for the loss of offices in the military half of the cursus honorum. Is some other sort of public service such as leading the terraformation effort a credible substitute?

Quote:

The execution thing can be approached through an actual bill of rights guaranteeing things like freedom of speech, and a presumption of innocence.

Yes, good! That is very likely in a post-modern re-imagining of the glory that was Rome.

Icelander

04-14-2010 07:00 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 967026)

Thus creating (or plausibly seeming to create, which is good enough) a republic protected against plutocracy by reserving certain office and powers to the poor.

Alternatively, the revivalists could be perfectly happy with a plutocracy and retain the economic classes of the Roman system.

As long as economic mobility was assured, it is not implausible that a lot of people might consider the ability to accumulate money to correlate better than many other things with the ability to make political decisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 967026)

Would there need to be any sort of adjustment for the loss of offices in the military half of the cursus honorum. Is some other sort of public service such as leading the terraformation effort a credible substitute?

Not really. All the offices of the cursus honorum are non-military in nature by the time of the late Republic.

The only exclusively military elected office is outside of the cursus honorom, i.e. the tribunus militaris.

It is true that many governors were more generals than civic administrators, but the office itself was techincally civilian.

Pomphis

04-15-2010 05:34 AM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 966667)

The execution thing can be approached through an actual bill of rights guaranteeing things like freedom of speech, and a presumption of innocence.

Which raises the question of whether there should be a independent judiciary outside the cursus honorum, or whether judgeships are part of it, and whether supreme judicial power rests with the senate or an independent court.

IMO "no independent judiciary" means that legal guarantees are more conventions than really binding. OTOH having an independent judiciary changes the republic massively, IMO too much. Maybe no independent judiciary in general, but some sort of constitutional council made up of all former consuls and censors with the power to veto convictions ?

Polydamas

04-18-2010 12:19 PM

Re: Roman revivalists... in [Space]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pomphis (Post 967270)

I agree. The situation with the Gracchi escallated because there was no neutral mechanism to decide some messy constitutional questions. And Caesar's revolt began partially because he was worried that if he gave up his offices (and immunity to prosecution) he would be charged and face trial by his enemies. He had some war crimes in Hispania and Germania to answer for, as well as the usual corruption. The lack of a force to enforce the laws, and acceptance of the use of violence to settle civil quarrels, were also dangerous.

I'd say the main flaw of the Republican constitution was that it depended on frequent war, and it got too succesful at it. The huge amounts of wealth pouring in from overseas, and the huge sacrifice of work and blood which was expected of citizens, led to quarreling over the spoils. It also helped break down the traditional limits on competition among the officeholding class. The quarrel between the cives and the socii was part of this: the allies wanted citizenship for their pains, but many citizens didn't want to have to share the spoils.

From our modern perspective, the fact that only people living near Rome could participate in national politics regularly was also a problem. But there isn't a lot of evidence that this bothered actual Romans. I'd suggest including some way to participate in debates and votes from outside the capital, but cheap transport will help a lot too.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:52 AM.