Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Hello Everyone,

For the week of May 29th - June 4th, we are reading chapter 7 of SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard.

The seventh week's reading assignment is:

WEEK SEVEN - May 29th - June 4th -> 7. From Empire to Emperors (253-296)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off April 17th.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Vicki Cline will be moderating this selection.

Welcome,

~Vicki

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Mary Beard

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.

/topic/show/...

Also, the citation thread:

/topic/show/...

Introduction Thread:

/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author may have used in his research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc. with proper citations or other books either non-fiction or historical fiction that relate to the subject matter of the book itself. No self-promotion, please.

Here is the link:

/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - Spoiler Thread

/topic/show/...

Link:

by Mary Beard

Everyone, for the week of May 29th - June 4th, we are reading Chapter 7.

The seventh week's reading assignment is:

WEEK SEVEN - May 29th - June 4th -> 7. From Empire to Emperors (253-296)

Chapter Overview and Summary:

7. From Empire to Emperors


Roman Empire

This chapter deals with some of the outsized personalities inhabiting the middle of the first century BCE � Gaius Marius, Pompey and Julius Caesar.

Roman Empire

Discussion Topics:

1. What do you think of Beard’s statement that the empire made the emperors?

2. Why didn’t Rome set up a bureaucratic structure for dealing with their foreign “possessions�?

Pompey Magnus

Discussion Topics:

1. Suppose neither Caesar nor Pompey had existed. What would have happened to the Republic?

2. On the other hand, suppose there was only Pompey. Would he have taken over like Caesar did?

Without Gaius Marius' military reforms, I don't think Julius Caesar would have been able to conquer Gaul and take over Rome (for a while, anyway). Before these changes, a man had to own a certain amount of property, be in the upper 5 census classes and supply his own weapons. Once Marius opened the legions to the capite censi, or head-count citizens, and supplied their arms from the treasury, most soldiers were more loyal to their general than to the abstract state. I do think these reforms were necessary, as the number of men who were qualified under the old system kept dwindling, and a large army was needed to fight the barbarian invasions in the north.

Links:

As far as what might have happened if there had never been a Caesar or a Pompey, that's a hard one. I can't think of anyone else around that time who would have commanded the loyalty of the legions and also wanted to be in charge. On the other hand, if there had been only Pompey, he might have been "forced" to take over by the optimates in order to stave off a popular uprising (if any had happened). He had already been sole consul at their behest.

The only other person at that time, would have been Marcus Licinius Crassus, if he hadn't gotten himself killed.

I don't think Crassus ever wanted to be the main man in charge. He just didn't want Pompey to be that man.

I like Beard's notion that the emperors were created by the empire. It does seem that some kind of structure was needed to administer Rome's far-flung "possessions." Sometimes a governor was really cruel and rapacious (like Verres who was prosecuted by Cicero). Even good governors could be wrongly prosecuted and exiled, like Publius Rutilius Rufus, accused of extortion in Smyrna. Actually he had tried to protect its citizens from extortionate publicani, and was welcomed there to serve out his exile. Having one person as the permanent head of government might solve these problems.

Links:

Why was there no bureaucracy to manage the possessions? Well, how about Senate incompetence and weakness for bribery? (p.266) Cicero stayed on top of the corruption brilliantly prosecuting people like Verres. His writings reportedly developed principles and procedures for the bedrock of a judiciary. But, this was all about Rome, not the possessions, as far as I can tell.

Although there didn't seem that there was a consistent government structure, there was Gaius Marius who developed rules and procedures for recruiting a professional army that seeded a burgeoning class of retired warriors with resources. Of course, there was the Senate, for better or worse.

Rome seemed addicted to war. Rome had conquered the known world acquiring Sicily, North and West Africa, Corsica, Sardinia, eventually Gaul not to mention the rest of the Italian peninsula. Could it be that they were so busy fighting - not one(1) - but three(3) Punic Wars, for example, that conquest was more important and exciting than the more mundane business of running the countries?

Mary Beard says, "Assemblies of the people repeatedly voted vast resources to those they were persuaded could best undertake the defence, or expansion, of Rome’s empire. In effect, they voted autocrats into power..." (p. 269).

Defense and expansion are exciting especially with an all powerful autocrat such as Pompeii or Julius Caesar for people to rally around. (I may have seen too many old epic gladiator movies)

The word bureaucrat does not engender enthusiasm today; doesn't seem like it did back then either.

Lots of interesting points, Marianne. The Romans seem to have had a fanatical aversion to having someone be in elected office longer than one year, and would naturally have been against semi-permanent non-elected positions as well.

What's always amazed me is that they didn't have a permanent police force or firefighters until Augustus set up the vigiles. Also that it was up to private persons to prosecute lawbreakers.

Links:

The Romans also seemed to avoid both the term and role of "King" probably due to their own past.

I'm a big fan of Caesar's - he was a brilliant general and very smart. So I don't understand how he allowed or encouraged the shows of adulation towards him, especially the Lupercalia performance by Antony where he tried to give Caesar a crown. And accepting the position of Dictator for Life was tantamount to being king, which was hated by most Romans.

The week 8 thread is open. Chapter 8 covers aspects of Roman everyday life.

/topic/show/...

Do you think the empire makes the emperors? That's like asking if someone is a product of their environment. Yes, I believe that the emperors had to rise to the occasion they were presented with. Those that didn't were killed off.

Why a lack of structure for foreign possessions? I suspicion two main reasons: Firstly, cost. By allowing the tax collectors to make bids to collect taxes in the provinces, they avoided the upkeep required to provide state employed citizens to do the tax collecting. By accepting bids for tax collectors, they had instant revenue and whether those tax collectors made their money back was really the problem of the individual making high risk bids. Secondly, giving some free reign on the provincial governors allowed the proconsuls a means of making their money back from their previous expenditures on the election seasons. The lack of oversight enabled the common, but frowned upon practice of pocketing money or goods from the provinces. Such was the case with Verres (former governor of the Sicilian province), one of Marcus Cicero's first major prosecution cases. Other than that, most states got relatively free reign as long as you didn't try to install your own king without Rome's blessing.

What would happen if Caesar and Pompey didn't exist? The end of the Republic was mostly a product of the times. Populists were becoming increasingly common like in the case of the Gracchus brothers. Sulla succeeded in becoming dictator for life. After the whole debacle with Hannibal, the Romans slowly began to realize that the armies should have dedicated generals and not be simply handed to the nearest consul with the result of a Cannae incident. Eventually, as generals saw more lengthy periods of leadership, they would focus their efforts on loyalty of the troops. Loyalty of the troops gave them power over the state. It was really only a matter of time before another Caesar came along.

What if there was only Pompey around? Pompey was immensely popular, but he didn't have the cahones that Caesar had. In Cicero's letters he describes how Pompey really just kind of went with the flow of things on the first triumvirate. According to those same letters, upon Caesars entering Italy with troops Pompey took command somewhat reluctantly. That said, I feel the republic would've at least lasted a little while longer without Caesar. Pompey was reluctant to cross the senate even if he was well versed with glory.

I'm sorry for the late response to these questions. I got tied up in other readings. However, my plan is to read a chapter a day out of this book starting on here on ch. 7 and be caught up by the time the book as a whole discussion wraps up. Okay, here are my answers to the discussion questions for ch. 7:

1. What do you think of Beard’s statement that the empire made the emperors?

I have always thought that this was a pretty accurate statement of what happened to the Roman Republic. The Republic had been extending it's borders for centuries prior to Julius Caesar, but the republican government of Rome had not reformed itself sufficiently enough to deal with complexities of ruling a vast empire. They were so afraid of having any kind of an executive power, strong or weak, that they settled for practically no executive power. Thus, what they ended up with was an executive power that controlled everything rather than one that was checked by the power of the legislature.

2. Why didn’t Rome set up a bureaucratic structure for dealing with their foreign “possessions�?

Beard seems to intimate that it was not in the best interests of the Roman elite to set up such a bureaucracy. Roman governors and nobles grew rich off of bilking their provinces as much as they could. Setting up a bureaucracy would have destroyed this flow of easy cash into the pockets of the politicians. Money in politics, am I right?

3. Suppose neither Caesar nor Pompey had existed. What would have happened to the Republic?

I think the Roman Empire would've collapsed much sooner. Without a strong executive and with no incentive for the ruling classes to change their corrupt governing practices in the provinces, eventually the outlying provinces would have revolted enough times to the point where Rome could no longer maintain control over everything. Indeed, that is what happened to the empire in the West, but in slow motion. I recommend by Peter Heather for that story.

4. On the other hand, suppose there was only Pompey. Would he have taken over like Caesar did?

I don't think Pompey would've taken over like Caesar did, but the Senate seems to have been more than happy with granting him more powers until he was governing Spain remotely. Beard intimates that what Pompey was doing (i.e. ruling remotely) ended up being how the emperors actually did rule. It's quite possible that reforms would've been put in place for future proconsuls to do such a thing, but I doubt it would've have done much to stem the destruction of the empire.

Thanks for your interesting comments, Christopher. It's never too late to add to a discussion about books we're reading.

Hey Christopher, I liked one of your points: "They were so afraid of having any kind of an executive power, strong or weak, that they settled for practically no executive power. Thus, what they ended up with was an executive power that controlled everything rather than one that was checked by the power of the legislature."

Using Athens as a reference point from which to compare with Hippias, it took Spartan intervention (via an intended puppet leader). Their expulsion of Hippias also resulted eventually in his return to try and grab power back by force using Persian help at Marathon. Granted I feel like Greek and especially Athenian politics are somewhat more convoluted than Roman politics, but your point definitely reminded me of this on the grounds that they also feared any individual having any executive power. Thus, they used exile as the means by reducing the chance of this happening where Themistocles, hero of the second Persian invasion (you know, the one with Thermopylae, Xerxes, and Leonidas) and the battle of Salamis, is a prime example.