The western industrial revolution started by replacing both paid and slave labor with machines. Note, while Rome built many great technologies like roads, aquifers, indoor plumbing, sewers, architecture, and standardized tax law. There was no such thing as due process within their democratic process. i.e. if a dozen people from the community dropped your name on pottery shards into the anonymous legal pot, than you were banished from the city without trial.
It has also been argued, that a series of incompetent leaders starting with Caligula had caused the empire to enter a downward trend. Much how Julius Caesar grew the empires influence through bloody conquest, his successors ambitions simply exceeded the civilizations limits economically.
It is fascinating how a whole civilization could collapse simply by having a few greedy fools in charge. However, I am certain we are different.. ;-)
> There was no such thing as due process within their democratic process. i.e. if a dozen people from the community dropped your name on pottery shards into the anonymous legal pot, than you were banished from the city without trial.
That's Athens, not Rome, which had very little in the sense of actual democratic processes indeed, even in republican times. The tribal assembly was continually overshadowed by the senate, and the only popular institution of any power was the tribunate of the people with it's veto powers -- practically lost during the Punic wars until the government started to break under the strain of the wrongly-incentivized oligarchy.
It has been many years, but concilium plebis made plebiscita that were legally binding for all citizens if I recall. Servius Tullius had also given the vote to others not of the original founding tribes.
I do believe you are correct about the Athens origin of the clay shards though. The subject of exile was confused with the story of Cicero, who was a character who traveled an awful lot. ;)
Yes, they did have that power. They did not, however, actually use it a lot (at all?) after the Punic wars AFAIK (the senate had in practice taken on the entire government as a war measure, and effectively shut out the tribal assembly of any decision making), and when the assembly again started to wield that it under the Gracchi brothers, they are basically reinventing the participation of the non-senatorial citizens because the old system had effectively lapsed. And we are by that time in the "it started to break" phase.
What? The Romans weren’t going to lose the Punic wars as long as there was a new generation of men reaching fighting age every spring. They learned from their mistakes, and Hannibal’s invasion of Italy was doomed from the start because there was no resupply plan.
I'm entirely unsure what you read in my comment. The Punic war was mentioned as a reference time from when on the senate had basically co-opted the entire Roman government.
That's simply not true. All three of the historical dictatorships during antiquity (The Gracchi brothers + Marius) were caused by 'Ballot stuffing' by slaves.
Those weren't dictatorships, given that that word has concrete meaning during the Roman Republic. The actual dictatorships were those of Sulla and Caesar, and neither dictatorship was elected by the tribes.
Also, very much true. Original poster talked about ostracization in anient Athens, but assigned it to Rome.
I'd point out that your comment reads like an optimate framing of the tribunates of the Gracchi brothers - I know that they gained unconstitutional multiple terms in a row, but as far as I know their popularity was genuine, not requiring what sounds exactly like the complaint of an oligarch about the riff-raff.
Roman economy and military power is considered to have been at it’s peak around the time of Marcus Aurelius, who ruled 120 years after the death of Caligula.
Then again Romans didn’t really practice ostracism either…
>Then again Romans didn’t really practice ostracism either
IIRC, the Roman historian Polybius described exilium, relegatio, Aquae et Ignis Interdictio, and more commonly Deportatio as being favored over other forms of punishment.
>Marcus Aurelius
I hope you were thinking of Antoninus Pius instead. ;)
You’re describing the Athenian ostracon. The Romans did not have that and did in fact place a great deal emphasis on the law-as-such in a way we would consider it analogous to due process.
The Roman historian Polybius described exilium, relegatio, Aquae et Ignis Interdictio, and more commonly Deportatio as being favored over other forms of punishment.
Of course, my memory may be incorrect, and you should study the matter yourself.
If I recall correctly, Relegatio was banishment from the Roman province via magisterial decree. Aquae et ignis interdictio was a more severe version stripping individuals of most legal rights.
> It is fascinating how a whole civilization could collapse simply by having a few greedy fools in charge. However, I am certain we are different.. ;-)
It has also been argued, that a series of incompetent leaders starting with Caligula had caused the empire to enter a downward trend. Much how Julius Caesar grew the empires influence through bloody conquest, his successors ambitions simply exceeded the civilizations limits economically.
It is fascinating how a whole civilization could collapse simply by having a few greedy fools in charge. However, I am certain we are different.. ;-)