tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post8206981954973743456..comments2023-09-26T04:38:00.780-05:00Comments on Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings: Book Review: The Fall of the Roman Empirehank_F_Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-55104916168683440412009-07-22T08:05:32.642-05:002009-07-22T08:05:32.642-05:00(deleted this by accident, the first draft was pos...(deleted this by accident, the first draft was possibly better)<br /><br />I don't really see Gaius Julius Caesar as part of the story of the Empire. Rather, I see his rule as a last attempt to preserve the old Republic, in a modified form, with the traditional ruling elite and system grafted on to Caesar's autocracy.<br /><br />The late Republic was not very Republican. The system worked well for a city state, and then a city state that ruled Italy. But when Rome acquired foreign provinces, and control of their vast wealth, all that money hopelessly destablized the system, and the Republic turned into (even more than it was) a plaything for the nobles to enrich themselves and play power games, all fueled by the wealth of the provinces. Meanwhile, the state was not getting the work done.<br /><br />I think Caesar saw this, and tried to rectify it with a more autocratic system, with Republican aspects. But the oligarchs wouldn't put up with it, and killed him -- and finished off what was left of the Republic, and destroyed their own class in the bargain. The murder of Caesar, far from restoring the traditional Republic, unleashed another 30 years of chaos and war.<br /><br />Augustus took up where Gaius Julius left off, but he did not repeat the mistake of trying to co-opt the traditional ruling class. The Emperors never did get the succession issue quite right...although the Julio-Claudians went a fair way towards establishing the principle of hereditary succession by descent or by adoption.<br /><br />Part of the trouble early on was the system's design as a faux Republic that was actually a monarchy. But the main issue was always bad Emperors...that idiot Nero finished the Julio-Claudians, Dominition did the same for the Flavians, Commodius for the line of Five Good Emperors. <br /><br />The worse the ruler, the more the temptation to appeal to force. Once you start using the Army to resolve succession questions, you've made a huge mistake, because every Colonel who can make a speech thinks he has a crown in his knapsack.El Jefe Maximohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661511063910659377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-44162845259874807442009-07-22T07:54:34.385-05:002009-07-22T07:54:34.385-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.El Jefe Maximohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661511063910659377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-22114964361464300382009-07-21T22:10:10.480-05:002009-07-21T22:10:10.480-05:00El Jefe
Yes, Luttwak’s Grand Strategy is great, t...El Jefe<br /><br />Yes, Luttwak’s <i>Grand Strategy</i> is great, the best, in my opinion, of what he has written. <br /><br />The biggest failure of Julius and Agustus Ceasar was not providing a means of succession without involving the Army.<br /><br />This is a very different Rome than the late Republic/early Empire. In many ways it was the overstretch that makes the difference. I’m just not sure how Rome could have avoided being drawn in the Eastern Med. Once they had expended enough to be part of the situation they had to control it or it would control them. But you are right it was to much to control in the face of an <i>Exogenous Shock</i>hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-72726301964656748092009-07-21T14:44:55.622-05:002009-07-21T14:44:55.622-05:00I have recently acquired this book, as well as Adr...I have recently acquired this book, as well as Adrian Goldsworthy's book on the same subject, and will be curious to read them both.<br /><br />On this same subject, hunt down a copy of Edward Luttwak's <i>The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the 1st Century A.D. to the Third</i>. <br /><br />Having read a little on the subject before, I agree about the "the Exogenous Shock" at least in part. The relatively greater problem of the Germans from 350 or so forward was magnified by the problems the Empire had on the Persian frontier, at more or less the same time. The Sassanid Persians proved to be a lot tougher than Rome's old Parthian adversary, and I don't think the Roman military was equal to the task of holding them in check and the Germans too. It wasn't big enough, and the distance of the threats from the Med. cut into the sea based strategic mobility the Republic had always enjoyed.<br /><br />More particularly, I think the late Republic made a real error after the Mithridatic Wars of the 1st Century BC -- that is going into the eastern Med in a big way. That was too much for the Empire to hold later.<br /><br />But more importantly, for much of the Empire, the biggest enemy of Rome was. . .Rome. All those civil wars over the Imperial sucession really cost them, and probably debilitated the military. <br /><br />My own interest recently has been Caesar and the late Republic/Early Empire (from the Gracchi through the end of the wars establishing the Empire). But I'll get to these soon enough.El Jefe Maximohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661511063910659377noreply@blogger.com