- This topic has 9 voices and 41 replies.
-
Posts
-
Maybe one can define fall as change when it comes to going from Republic to Empire? Augustus really changed the world at that time just before the principate. And I would have to say, with his restoration of Rome, the commoners must have felt it. He did introduce the spectacles and amusement games which was a big thing in Roman society, as well as his other city planning tasks (water, food, roads, etc.). Even the Senate and nobility of Rome changed during his reign. The Roman world was definitely a different place after Actium. (I'll have to agree with Dio on this one)
Doesn't fall apply to a whole civilisation and not just the government in the context of this conversation? Society did not fundamentally change with the advent of the Empire, for that matter the makeup of the government did not really change. The only real change, profound as it may have been, was the source of governmental authority. For the average Roman their life did not significantly change when the Republic was replaced by Empire. I would wager that the average Roman actually felt relieved because the uncertainty of the Civil Wars was finally over.
Doesn't fall apply to a whole civilisation and not just the government in the context of this conversation?
Well, if you want to look at it that way, can't you say that Rome never fell seeing that Europe uses their form of government along with civil and military institutions?
For the average Roman their life did not significantly change when the Republic was replaced by Empire.
I disagree with this because of what I stated earlier. Yes, one has to look at the emperors' motives, but it seems most of them did some great things to improve society and everyday life for the commoners.
I think that referring to the “fall of the Republic” is fine. It's just referring to the form of government in Rome, which did change. Although this may have amounted to no noticeable difference to the vast majority of people, I think it was still highly significant in Roman history.
Hmm, I don't understand why both of you are saying there was little change to the people of Rome. There seemed to be a big change for the better. The people knew a centralized government would be better for the Empire, and it was. Or at least it was as far along as I am so far (Augustus' reign).
If you took away the internet, newspapers, radio, and TV, would you notice much difference in your daily life from when Bush was in office until now when Obama is in office? And this after Obama has made some of the most radical changes in the history of our government.
Hmm, I don't understand why both of you are saying there was little change to the people of Rome. There seemed to be a big change for the better. The people knew a centralized government would be better for the Empire, and it was. Or at least it was as far along as I am so far (Augustus' reign).
You are trying to claim a political awareness for the mob of Rome? What is your evidence for anything close to what we would recognize as political awareness today? The Roman mob was akin to the Parisian mob of the eighteenth century, they were concerned with bread and wine, not their form of government.The Roman Republic was a fairly centralized government, the only real difference in the initial change from Republic to Empire was the source of governmental power switched from the Senator to Emperor. Augustus never claimed the title of Emperor, he insisted on being called first citizen, the title imperator was assumed by later emperors.Phid is making an excellent point. The day to day existence of Romans changed very little with the advent of the Empire.
I didn't say there was political awareness like today. But they did have some otherwise they wouldn't have cheered, liked, or disliked who they did. There are no direct or reliable sources to support my claim, I'm only interpreting it from recorded events. Remember, I'm only as far as Augustus and what I'm learning is his changes to the social life of Romans which included a better infrastructure, improved food storage, more religious temples, a substantial growth in games and spectacles (which definitely affected the citizens), and a more liberal view of Senatorial power. Perhaps I'm only looking at the city of Rome rather than the whole Empire.And yes, there are vast changes now in peoples' daily lives under Obama than with Bush. Without having to check the internet or press, I don't ever remember anytime in my life (I was just a kid during the recession of the late 70's) where so many were either worried about their jobs or unemployed as there is now.
Ski, I do believe there were some changes that were made that were noticeable, such as the creation of monumental/public structures under the emperors (think about the Roman fora, stadiums, or the baths). They created entertainment/leisure structures for the people to enjoy, but as a way of glorifying themselves (the emperors). But these were not constructed overnight. Another example – Augustus brought the aqueducts down to Pompeii, so that would have been another big change to daily life. But I think that the continuity under both forms of government would still have been fairly constant. I'm talking about the institutions, the economic classes, the military, the family, etc. Most people would not be changing jobs as a direct result of the Senate-Emperor shift in power. IMO, bottom line - one might have noticed changes in government under the Republic and the Emperor over the course of one's lifetime in Rome. Contrast this with the fall of the Third Reich in Germany when changes to society would have been visible within a matter of days/weeks/months
IMO, bottom line - one might have noticed changes in government under the Republic and the Emperor over the course of one's lifetime in Rome. Contrast this with the fall of the Third Reich in Germany when changes to society would have been visible within a matter of days/weeks/months
DITTO, That is also what I am tying to say.Ski, your reference to the recession is misleading, Recessions are temporary things regardless of how devastating they may be to individuals, they don't really affect a society long-term. The experience of the average roman citizen did not significantly change with the beginning of the empire. If you are currently studying the reign of Augustus, you should also be covering the ways in which he struggled to keep the old Republican forms if not the substance of Republican government. Octavian/Augustus went to great pains to appear to not threaten the continuity of the Republic, at least for public consumption or PR reasons, if you will. That is one reason why Octavian succeeded where Caesar did not. Caesar threatened the very substance of the Republican with his grandiose plans. Octavian had the same power Caesar had but maintained the fiction that the Republic and its institutions continued. It is important to remember as I have stated previously that Augustus never called himself the Emperor that came with later emperors, Augustus simply took the title of first citizen.
That is true. He never called himself that, but the Senate hailed him as pater patriae, father of his country and he did add the title of imperator to his name himself. He was elected to other offices. I do think it is a good point that he kept the Republic veneer, but he drastically changed it. The emperor always had the final word. And I think the Romans were ready to have one king and one ruler. I still think there was a clear distinction from Republic to Empire and that society felt it. Maybe not in a few years, but I think definitely within Augustus' reign. And what about the closing the doors of the temple of Janis? That was only the third time in Roman history. I would imagine the people felt and knew that the civil wars were finally over and Rome was now at peace. The change under Augustus was felt by all.Recessions are just as "temporary" as is any empire. It's just that empires usually last longer. Is there a difference between administrations? It depends on how drastic the changes are. Taxation, wars, economy all those can have a great affect on common, everyday society. I think it's a fine reference and one that answers the question of whether or not we the people feel the differences between administrations. Well, thanks for this little debate/discussion. The fall of the Republic is actually one of the essay questions on my midterm, so you guys are making me dig for it to defend my position! ;D
Well, thanks for this little debate/discussion. The fall of the Republic is actually one of the essay questions on my midterm, so you guys are making me dig for it to defend my position! ;D
Yeah...your professor just recently wrote to us to ask us the answer to that essay question, and we let him know. So don't say we didn't warn you. ;D
