While mobs were often a feature of Roman politics, I don't think they're what
did in the Republic. The way Romans voted would have made us crazy. The
wealthier the voter, the more his vote counted. It was a complicated system,
sorta/kinda similar to our precinct system except precincts were assigned by
status and wealth rather than geography, and the top two (IIRC) "precincts" had
far more clout than the others. Romans loved tradition, at any cost, and
unfortunately had a "clause" in their "constitution" that permitted the
appointment of dictators to protect and preserve the Republic in times of great
duress. Think Sulla. when people such as Julius Caesar threatened the stability
of centuries of tradition--and took advantage of the dictator
"clause,"--something had to be done. That triggered the last in a series of
civil wars that ended when Caesar's rather ruthless nephew Octavian solidified
power and transformed himself into the Emperor Augustus. He did so in the name
of st
ability, and promoting tradition and the best ideals of the Roman Republic.
>From my reading of history, I'm not sure the Roman Republic was ever a
>republic in the sense that we think of republics today. They seemed to think
>that no longer having a king was enough.
--Bobus Maximus
On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> It can be argued that the fall of the Roman Republic was hastened by
> democracy. What happened was that the elected officials became puppets
> of the mob. Especially since the mob was able to attend the sessions
> and threaten/kill anybody that didn't vote their way.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|