Roman revivalists... in [Space]

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

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]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

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]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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.

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]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

OK, I'll take a crack at.

Excellent! Thank you.

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Brett

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.

Originally Posted by Brett

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.