I am currently in a long-term personal study project of classical Greek and Roman history, using the primary sources as my main base. Currently, I'm tracing the period of the Roman Republic Civil Wars in the 1st century BC. Since I view history as a great teacher of lessons, especially when viewed from the proper, Divine, perspective, I'd like to offer here the physical and spiritual reasons for the decay of Roman society that caused such terrible activities to occur during the period of the civil wars.
My aim here is to communicate history in an easy-to-understand fashion - let me know if I'm being clear enough.
A brief overview of Roman society in the time of the Republic must first be given. At the beginning of the Republic, the citizens of Rome were basically divided into two classes: the patricians (wealthier landowners with more name prestige) and the plebeians (the "normal" Roman, who basically worked the trades and kept city business running). There were many quarrels between the two groups over governmental representation, but these were generally resolved without shedding of blood. By the time of the Punic Wars with Carthage, this distinction, at least government-wise, was largely erased.
The Roman government consisted of a Senate, composed mainly of patricians (although eventually plebeians were able to join) and the People (all Roman citizens not part of the Senate). Two Consuls, who headed the government, were elected to a 1-year term by an Assembly of the people - they exercised the most important state affairs and usually led armies to battle as well. There were also tribunes, who spoke up for the rights of the plebeians and had the power to halt even a consul's action if they deemed it hurtful to the Roman people as a whole. Their own persons were also deemed to be "sacrosant"; it was illegal to harm them.
Also, there was a very important office that only emerged in times of extreme difficulty to the Roman state: that of the dictatorship. To the Roman, this term was not negative; it simply represented the enormous power of the office. Dictators were appointed by the consuls and had absolute authority over all matters - but only for 6 months. The idea was that in a crisis, the decisive action of one man would help to settle matters more effectively than a large body of people with conflicting viewpoints.
I've given this capsule summary of Roman government so that you can all understand the terms I'll use and be better able to comprehend the reasons for why the Republic declined.
As a result of my reading, I consider the most "pure" form of Roman society to have been during the time of the Punic Wars, when the very survival of the Romans was at stake. Everyone was united against the invading Carthaginians, led by their brillian general Hannibal, and even though there were disputes in the government, on the whole Rome behaved most admirably in meeting the greatest threat to its existence. Before the Punic Wars, the struggle between the patricians and the plebeians (concluded about 350 BC) had been a huge detrimental influence to the stability of society; it was not until this conflict had been resolved that Roman territory significantly expanded. This was only made possible by the close cooperation of all Romans together in government and the growing strength of the military. By the time of the First Punic War (264 BC), Rome controlled all of Italy below the Alps. In this war, the innovation of the Romans, who had never fought outside of Italy until then, surprised the Carthaginians, and they were soundly beaten on their homeground - the sea.
Even when Hannibal, flush after a series of amazing victories over the Romans (216 BC), was on the brink of ending the war in Carthage's favor, the Romans refused to give up. It is said that a young Publius Cornelius Scipio, who afterwards defeated Hannibal, at this time forced his fellow Romans to swear an oath of loyalty to the State at swordpoint when they were talking of abandoning Italy for good. It is thus no wonder that the Romans could eventually defeat Hannibal, even through a long and costly 15-year war of attrition. They then went on to thoroughly humiliate the Macedonians and Seleucids, formerly the most prestigious empires in the Mediterranean world. However, by that time, the seeds of eventual civil disorder and decay were already sown. Over the next 100 years they would bear their evil and despicable fruit.
The first reason for the moral decay of the Republic was the change in the way it conducted its military affairs. In the past, wars were a quick affair which could usually be finished by the onset of winter, allowing time for soldiers to tend to the necessaries of life, such as farming. However, the expansion of Rome brought it into conflict with greater powers, and wars became decade-long affairs. Consuls commanded the most significant armies, and since they were only in office for a year new men regularly assumed leadership. This caused havoc in the war against Hannibal, since consuls with differing military philosophies and abilities kept taking and leaving command, leading to much confusion in the armies and contributing to Hannibal's victories. The Romans soon found out that it was necessary for commanders to be in control of the armies for years so that the war could be fought more regularly. In this way, the generals began to gain power, prestige, and popularity, which naturally led to increased ambition. For example Scipio, mentioned above, was with his armies for several years as they conquered Spain, then boldly went over to Africa. He became a folk hero among the Romans, yet excited great controversy because of his luxurious manner of living and the resulting dispute with more conservative leaders of the Senate. Down the road, this growing ambition of generals would lead to fatal consequences for the Republic.
Another reason that contributed to the Republic's downfall was the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. During the several wars of expansion, Rome gained an enormous amount of territory. Since many of the citizens were already serving in the armies, the rich landowners saw opportunities to grab up more property for themselves. Then, when the soldiers came back after spending years abroad, they found themselves unable to keep a living on their small farms or were cheated out of their land by the rich people. Rome accordingly was soon filled with the landless and unemployed, which led to increased disorder and spurred calls for reform.
Third, that vice which is unfortunately so universal among nations also corrupted the Romans - the love of money. Rome prided itself on its honest, hard-working way of living, but when the spoils from conquests began to flood in from Carthage, from Macedonia, and from Asia, the avarice of the population increased considerably. Senators became more open to bribery, and the standard of living for the rich increased to the point where sheer extravagance prevailed. And this love for money was not easily lost.
Another reason was the absence of powerful enemies to fight. After Carthage - a shadow of its former glory - was utterly razed from the earth in 146 BC, there were no more worthy enemies in the Roman eye. All of the Mediterranean world now made supplication to Rome as its defacto overlord and dealer of affairs. Without the threat of foreign affairs, attention began to be paid to the internal problems of the state that were now beginning to manifest themselves openly. This in turn would lead to disastrous consequences.
It is not my intent to delight in going over the gory minute details of the civil wars, but I will give a brief overview of what happened when the Republic decayed into this time of troubles. The first open signs of discord occurred in 133 BC, when Tiberius Gracchus, a tribune of the plebeians, called for redistribution of the land to give the poor citizens a share of property. He, and later his brother, were both assassinated by mobs driven by the Senate itself, which was mainly comprised of the richer faction. After this time, murders and assassinations of officials became commonplace; Rome had never seen such actions regularly happen before.
The sad state of affairs became clearer when Rome went to war with Jugurtha, the king of an African kingdom called Numidia. By clever bribing of key Senate members and tricksy political (and military) maneuvering, Jugurtha managed to prolong an otherwise insignificant war (by Roman standards) into a years-long conflict. The manner in which he was captured by a junior commander, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, under the authority of General Gaius Marius, instigated a long-lasting resentment between both men when Sulla claimed that it was him, and not Marius, who had really ended the war (Marius, as the senior in rank, received the official recognition).
By around 90 BC, even Rome's Italian allies and subordinates had had enough. They, angered by the growing domineerism of the Romans, revolted and began a war right on Rome's home ground. Sulla distinguished himself greatly in defeating them, but then a more serious development began to happen in Asia. King Mithridates of the Black Sea-side kingdom of Pontus, noticing the great unrest in Italy, seized all of Rome's possessions in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) and invaded Greece itself. Marius, by that time old yet renowned as the "Third Founder of Rome" for his role in driving out a huge force of German barbarians that had threatened Italy, besides being made consul 6 times, 5 terms consecutively (which was illegal), demanded command of the war against Mithridates. However, the Senate had assigned it to Sulla. When Marius, through bribery, reversed the decision, Sulla was so angered that he marched his troops on Rome and forcibly kicked out Marius and his supporters. This was the first time a Roman had ever led Roman armies against their own country and city. It was also the beginning of the Civil Wars in earnest, when instead of mere mob violence entire armies of Romans began to fight each other. Sulla himself would eventually be appointed dictator for a no-limit time period, although he eventually laid down his office and retired to a private life. In this turbulent atmosphere, young Romans with world-renowned names first began to attain their manhood: Cicero, Pompey, and Julius Caesar.
Yet the Republic did not end there. It lingered on for more than 50 years, as most men were reluctant to end such a time-honored and venerable institution. In the end, Caesar Augustus was acclaimed as the "Princeps," or "First Citizen" by the Senate and assumed autocratic power. Yet the memory of the Republic proved to be so powerful that the Emperors never officially abolished it for 300 more years, preferring to be seen as safeguards of the Republic rather than the rulers of an Imperial Empire.
As we look over such a momentous time in history from a spiritual perspective, we see many truths of Scripture established: the total depravity of man, corrupted through and through by sin; the truth that the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil; the fact that power, even though greatly desirous, is always counterproductive to its pursuers; and, in particular, a vindication of the truths of Ecclesiastes, a book in which Solomon laments the unprofitability of human affairs (read it, it'll prove to be very intriguing). There were sincere-minded men who were truly desirous for reform, but they were crushed by the greater ambition of their enemies. Nobody stood on a firm surface, but were swayed back and forth according to their whims or the whims of the multitude. How much greater the Kingdom of Jesus Christ will be when, unified in one spirit, all will serve Him wholeheartedly! How much more glorious His kingdom will be if the glory of Rome was so great, even though splattered with the blood of its own citizens! If the Romans had a taste of true basic Biblical and godly morals which they eventually forsook (law and order, not killing or cheating, etc), how much more the saints, on whose hearts these morals and laws have been written, cling to and delight in the God who made them!
This is one reason why I love history - it helps put Biblical truths into perspective.
If you want to read more on the history of Rome, I recommend these primary sources:
Livy's History of Rome - everything from the beginning down to 167 BC, with one big gap from 290 BC to 218 BC
Polybius' Rise of the Roman Empire - good details on First Punic War, which is missing from Livy
Plutarch's Roman Lives - great reading!
Sallust's Jugurthine War and Catiline Conspiracy - shows decline of Roman Republican society from a contemporary moralist's perspective
Appian's Civil Wars - all you want to know about the Civil Wars......
No comments:
Post a Comment