Imperialist policy in antiquity was a necessary phenomenon and concomitant with democracy. This teaches us also the story of the only superpower Greek, Athens. The political morality and political acumen were then too little developed for each individual does not consider his immediate personal advantage as a center of political activity. Since the direction of the State was held by a minority of citizens and they could achieve a comfortable standard of living at the expense of the community or, rather, of a most economically and politically powerless, there was no need for them to aspire to External sources of wealth. Imperialist policy of the democracies was in every respect a policy of exploitation. Where governing slavery, body work, enjoys no personal consideration. Fully aware of the dignity conferred popular sovereignty, citizens felt no joy at former tribulations in the field or in the dark workshop, but rather that other hands would work for him, as well as past generations of families nobles of the country had maintained economic subjection to the other classes.
For the only slave labor was not that comfortable situation very easy reach. Slaves also cost money and blood, and, moreover, the country's production capacity from year to year was nearing its limit. If you wanted to meet the thrust of the population that required a huge potential and increased welfare and profits enough and easy taxation was necessary to look outside and everywhere inputs that were outside the urban area, prompting this certain part of their profits. From this need arose everywhere in the old imperialist policy, and almost everywhere we find it, in full development or commencement, as concomitant of the democratic victory, which in Greek territory ordinarily takes the form of popular monarchy, the so-called tyranny. In Rome this first victory of democracy was achieved by maintaining the republican form of government. But in the course of evolution, she fell off a new aristocracy, who managed to take over the whole of the State address, and continuing vigorously democratic politics - imperialist exploit it and use it for their own special interests. The new aristocracy was against a democracy again, and again won the latter, but this time under the banner of the monarchy, under whose leadership initiated a different social evolution, corresponding to economic fundamentals molted.
If Rome wanted to reduce a conquered land to permanent servitude and pillage tax break would primarily use inveterate had consistently been in their early conquests. The new policy no longer allowed to host within the Roman community to put the country's inhabitants, whereas previously they had been given at least the commoner civil law, which, as we know, was of lower grade. Laws Licinius - sexties, legal equality with the commoners, was very influential in changing the procedures. Compared to the past, the value of the civil rights of the commoners had risen sharply. The new citizens of the conquered countries have therefore gained more than lost by the destruction of their sovereignty. As commoners would have the right of participation "ager publicus" and at least deliberative vote and in the popular assemblies, in addition, their children, born after incorporation in the Roman community, would have come up as judges or senators, to be masters of Rome. But the old people, descendants of the builders and magnifiers of Rome, would have been substantially prejudiced in the enjoyment of their ancient rights. And just there lies the difference between ancient and modern democracy: the former is merely an aristocracy on broader base, which monitors, fearful and vigilant, lest anyone not born to it, participate with her in the state banquet. Modern democracy, on the contrary, to be consistent if it can not stop at national boundaries, and it has been genuine, has never reneged on its international trend.
The way in Rome, in the progressive and gradual subjection of Italy, has taken advantage of the unincorporated areas of the country to the territory of the State, may not know exactly today. In the opinion of most scholars, Rome would have resigned in general economic, limited, more military than economic reasons, to establish colonies in the respective regions and providing, in what is referred to the garrison of the same , considerable scope for the claims of the closest allies the Latins.
However, it seems that here too, as elsewhere, were taken as evidence of conditions at a later time. Later, the Confederates were effectively forced italics only to military service during wars and exempt from all real burdens (taxes, taxes, etc..), But this status must admit just about the time that the metropolis could really give up Confederate taxes, ie, when the conquered territory outside of Italy, called provinces, offered abundant compensation. The Roman yoke should not have been, in the beginning, so soft to the Italians, would, otherwise difficult to explain why, when penetrating during the Second Punic War (219-201) the Carthaginians in Italy, greeted them with joy as liberators. Generalissimo hardly Carthaginian, Hannibal, so weakly supported by his country, could have argued for nearly fifteen years in a hostile country against an overwhelmingly superior force, and the Romans, after that great war, would not have had, indeed, reasons to found in the regions italics so many new colonies, manned mainly by Roman citizens. We err, therefore, to consider the gentle treatment of the Confederates, ie the Italians conquered, as a consequence of the Second Punic War, as a lesson that Roman politics out of a series of bitter experiences. Rome now available, as already mentioned, sources of resources in the province (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Spain), next to the entries which the Italians could no longer have any importance, on the other hand, to maintain subject extraitálicos these vast territories, specified that the mother country, Italy was militarily strong and unconditionally loyal.
The treasures foreigners who flocked to Rome and to their citizens, are not restricted only to the inputs of the provinces. The more would widen its global policy, the more it filled the coffers of Rome. The contributions of war, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Syrian-these alone had to pay 15. 000 talents, a sum equal to nearly 70 million gold marks, had to pay, were, with respect to conditions then italics, a fabulous figure, and also sums as spoils of war generals used part in works of public interest and remitted to the revenue side. The ancient ideal of state-not the philosophers, but of practical politicians, by which foreign citizens should nurture, was increasingly being carried out. So Rome could not despite but because of its global policy, remove all direct taxes by their citizens and collect only 5% of the value of the slaves who were freed, almost equivalent to the several advantages that were to acquire in obtaining civil rights.
This transformation of a rough peasant in a village of rulers, who lived by the work of others, constitutes the internal history of Rome in the centuries following the completion of the struggles between patricians and plebeians. The process was developed, naturally, very slowly, while foreign policy was set for relatively modest, and the submission of Italy and adjacent islands. The internal evolution could not be fast while burning almost constantly wars against the walls of Rome. Only when the distribution of burdens (taxes and military conscription) on the whole of Italy could be relieved of the metropolis, only when the distance of the theater of war enabled the non-combatant population to engage, in full freedom, to the implementation of its creative energies and responsive, only then the transformation of Roman society took a course really quickly, resulting in a short time complete decomposition of the old Roman character.
Until the law Licinius - sexties inequalities among citizens existed in the field of law, the Constitution, notwithstanding that the legal situation was actually more than the recognition of material facts, economic. But after declared by law the legal equality of all citizens, were developing new antithesis and new contrasts, which outwardly resemble the old, to not be distinguishable from each other, but dares not put them on the ground the right, but the claims on the strength of the respective positions. The more flourishing the material situation of the state, the more abundant riches flowed available to citizens, the more important became the question of their distribution, the more ardent was the desire to take for itself the largest portion possible.
In such competition is the already wealthy, according to the old experience, superior to the poor. Licinia laws had not eliminated the gap between rich and poor, and that by not proceeding to a general redistribution of land. The inequality of property could therefore mark the starting point for the formation of new differentiations. But the economy based on interest-which also in ancient times were always the main incentive-action can not be sustained, given the small number of privileged, without the protection of the state. For this bowl of rich union had to ensure state power, while
the crowd of those who owned little or no natural represented the opposition to this system. It thus appears that the situation had not improved much from the previous one. For a case of luck or because of their intelligence and activity, some,, born poor, he could rise and a seat at the banquet of the Lords with its new and renowned wealth vice versa, or disinherited and impoverished patricians could not count conditions of their birth to rise again to the heights of life. While law enforcement limped licinia enough, as we have seen, over time the new situation of widely recognized duty.
The upper class had every reason to be satisfied with the old constitution, providing it the realization of all his claims of domination. In the Assemblies of the centuries yet remained a long time as a decisive factor the first class of owners, and even fewer components remained unswayed its predominant position. The centuries were not used, the more comfortable, only to legislate, but who chose to senior magistrates (consuls, magistrates and censors), who thus were elected to the wealthy. And to make this system the final stone was transferred, no one knows the exact date but think it was a generation after Licinius laws censors the appointment of senators, further provides that should be considered first and foremost those who had occupied senior positions may be disinherited only for misconduct or violations (law Ovini). So the Senate became, indirectly, more or less a creature of the centuries and an instrument of the wealthy. This was the more important given that the Senate's power had increased dramatically not by laws but by practice. Since no long considered himself a simple consultative body of citizens, but a corporation president, next to which the judges were kind of responsible ministers. In short, the conditions for the development of a new aristocracy, with the usual exchange of positions and possessions, they were unbeatable.
The signs of that evolution must have already expressed very early, but not as sharp they made in the last century of the Republic. Be fulfilled before the unification of Italy, are already in full bipartisan political struggle, the aristocracy and the common people. Sometimes the latter, despite the unfavorable electoral system, getting the consulate or blame for some of its rows, then try, particularly as censors, retaliating against the heads of the aristocracy for all the evil they had done to support crowd. But it may have been very frequent these electoral victories of democracy over the lack of suitable candidates. Public officials were not rented and required function during complete dedication to the duties of! office, forcing elected officials to leave by the time the care of their private business, in addition, after entering the Senate, had to say here what they were in office, always in a position to neglect his business. In short, the occupation of the office always required certain expenditures that were not repaid and that, despite its small size, could not be endured by anyone.
In later times been told many stories about the nobility and simplicity of the great generals and statesmen during the wars italics. But we must not misunderstand, as have many ancient and modern historians, who have measured the men according to the customs of a later age, representative for their time as models of civic virtue and modesty. At that time they did not differentiate much from the mass of people. The Romans were still an agricultural people, so a certain simplicity and uniformity of life in that state were innate economic - social. In this regard the large landowner, the small landowner, the tenant and the servant were not very different types: still missing the differentiator, culture. Rich and poor land and bravely till the close parsimony does not allow the luxury. Everyone tries to acquire for themselves as possible, and consideration, the power to follow logically possession. It is rightly said that the poor becomes mayor in a city rather than in a village trustee. Respect for the wealthy in these conditions is so ingrained that the struggle against the arbitrariness of the wealthy, large landowners at the beginning is taken without undue exasperation. Possession is a degree of power that the common man, the peasant, appeared much more evident that the nobility by birth. Just the fact that the nobility had helped before the poor to achieve any ownership, while legal inequality could lose their property to wealthy commoners had brought about the exasperation of the struggle between classes. In the new order, achieved political equality - legal, the situation was much better.
This applies to the land problem for a long time loses its old bitterness, being, however, the credit problem at the heart of the economic movement in the immediate future. We have already noted how the laws on debts came to the abolition of the security body, this being the most significant success achieved in the long struggle. Moreover, also the furniture capital celebrated their triumphs. Their main aspiration was matching the territorial possession, which until then had been the sole determinant of the legal position in the State. Such a situation was untenable, clearly appeared after the first successes of arms weeks against other peoples Italic (Latins and Samnites). For the road that should lead to Rome to the position of great power, cautious step of an agricultural people and not enough.
The man who recognized the contrast between the existing constitution and the historic mission of his people and sought to transform the bases with great measures of the dominant order was Appius Claudius, scion of an ancient and very respectable noble family, who served for that purpose, above all, of his duties as censor (312 d C). But we must emphasize again that the reformist aspirations of Appius Claudius, and the abolition of slavery, debt bondage, coincide with the time of the call Samnite War (316 -304 C ad), ie, when social reform could also have the consent of the ruling circles. While retaining their pride nobility. Appius Claudius could not escape the recognition that the future of Rome was not built on an oligarchy satiated, but on the new bourgeoisie that was moving vigorously. The mass participation in the life of the state should be more alive, more interested, and in this sense consciously Appius Claudius continued the work begun by the great tribunes of the people.
While the full enjoyment of civil rights was limited to landowners (adsidui), that aim could not be achieved naturally. The territory and the number of rural estates were interdependent, so that the exercise of civil rights had its precious natural limitation. The political interest of the dispossessed (Proletary), who could not enforce their wishes on anything, was thus very low. And so the urban development of Rome offered a very backward. The political center itself had nothing to say about the problems of politics. It can not therefore surprising that neither trade nor industry dared to unfold, providing only the agricultural class of power to set the means and the fruits of Roman politics.
As censor, Appius Claudius had to prepare lists of citizens and assign to each its place among the tribes and the centuries. But since the regulation does not lay on a written law, but the use is authorized to depart thought, without prior legislative determination, the traditional system and specify clearly in the drawing up lists his thinking. Rather than the mere possession rural, established as a basis for entry in any civil lists of taxable property, thus accepting the standards in the whole proletariat (Romans without rural property), and precisely not only to artisans and merchants urban civil origin, but also the sons of the freedmen if they were born after the liberation of their parents, thus equating the proud landowners in the enjoyment of civil and political rights. Even in the reconstruction of the Senate were taken into account, so much so, that under the protection of Appius Claudius his secretary, Gnaeus Flavius, son of a freedman, a few years later was elected mayor seat.
In the reform of Appius Claudius is expressed more liberal than the democratic concept: it recognizes the free play of forces, ie the legal equality within the maximum diversity of economic and social conditions. Only on this ground could develop a high culture with all its manifestations. And how Appius Claudius was living in that culture aspiration high, we still see today in the remains proud of the Appian Way, through which it established, despite the great natural difficulties, a new communication between Rome and territories of South newly conquered. How she pressed a desire to glorify the city, as demonstrated by the construction of the first aqueduct, which-and this is also very significant-supplied water from Mt preferentially healthy urban neighborhoods inhabited by tradesmen, artisans and small industrialists. With all this activity is also consistent, more remarkable for those times, in the literary and scientific.
He knew Greek literature, which translated into a collection of Latin sentences and maxims, arranged the spelling, thus establishing the basis for Roman literature, as he was very much appreciated even in later times, especially for the speech in the Senate against Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, in short, is remembered one of his works on the right of usurpation. Appius Claudius is presented as the first man of Roman culture, whose ideal is to lead his people from the primitive state to match fine Greek culture. Treatment with the proletariat was an essential part of this program.
It is natural that such a daring innovation found the most vigorous opposition. But as the power of the censor was not subordinate to higher authority and his colleague, intellectually inferior and all I could lock in their plans, not opposed no objection, opponents they had no choice but to wait until the next census, to entrust implementation to two censors conservative dye and absolute confidence. In fact, the ordinances of Appius Claudius in its radical appearance, lasted very little. For now found to favor the conservatives. Compensation for political rights was conscription, and the new citizens have filled vigorously thinned the ranks very long because of the Samnite war. But when eight years after peace was concluded and the supremacy of Rome in Italy seemed to be shaken, the new censors were prepared to limit as far as possible the reforms of Appius Claudius. Their complete removal was, of course, considered impossible, because it would have caused much outrage in the urban population. The new sensor patrician Fabius Rullianus. one of the most celebrated general of the Samnite war, had to settle for distribution to people "landless" in all four districts (tribes) urban, while Appius Claudius had distributed in 31 districts. For landed property such action was again restored to its predominant position in the assemblies of the tribes (Comitia taxed), leaving the other hand, in the assemblies of the centuries (Comitia centuriata) territorial ownership and capital (money) in competition. Also on the freedmen, the censors who came later came less liberally. Usually, it was never replaced in the field the discretion of the censors for a statutory right, thus leaving the treatment of the workers and freed constantly subordinate to the political principles of the censors in office. But nobody dared to touch more equalization of personal property included with the property, so we know the composition of both classes of assets just as their monetary value. Big business was not affected by Fabio Rullianus measures (allocation of the landless to the four city districts). The acquisition of a small plot of land in any of the rural districts was half as easy as safe to pass the legal status of the proletariat to "adsiduus" (landlord), in which, particularly the petty bourgeoisie was hurt and locked in its development following the reactionary provisions of Fabio. Their ranks were reinforced by the inhabitants of the campaign, who because of the long and continuous Samnite war had not been maintained in their farms and seek employment in the capital.
Small landowners also should be more on the side of the urban petty bourgeoisie with the large landowners, particularly as these, by increasing the number of slaves as a result of successful wars, increasingly taken the shape of the economy extensive. The main antithesis was now rich and poor, and the latter, as in the past commoners, found its advocates in the tribunes of the people.
Very little is known about the infighting in the following years, but for various successes of the popular party must conclude that those were not lacking. That usury had reached significant proportions, the figures suggest the fines. And there's more: soon after the third Samnite War (298 - 290), for which Rome had won recognition as the dominant power among all the people of Italy, came a new departure for the poor in the city, which this time Yanículo was established on the hill that rises beyond the Tiber, the exodus seems to have been caused by the unbearable burden of debt (287 d C). It thus appears that the distribution of land, shortly before, had proved inadequate. Among the conditions under which the people agreed to return to the city, know only a political one. The proposals of the tribunes of the people were declared free, ie not subject, as before, to the prior opinion of the Senate (Hortensio tribune Act). With that democratic initiatives became more likely to succeed. Although, according to the design of the successors of Appius Claudius in the Assemblies of the tribes were entitled to vote only landowners within the same individual and the vote was equal, so that the smallholders had the preponderance. In some cases they could also determine the four urban tribes - those of the landless. But the main thing was the independence of democratic organization and popular conservative in high places. If they then wanted to thwart the events of the adversary, as the only weapon to corrupt one or more orators, to paralyze the democratic action through the veto.
It should be recognized, however, was that the dominant party in the years of large foreign wars, at the height of his momentous task. The crowd, on the other hand, was grateful for the good direction, revealing very little inclination to set strong opposition. A breakthrough was undertaken by it only after the completion of the first war against Carthage (264 - 241), when found in the person of Gaius Flaminius a boss, still as tribune, praetor, consul and censor, knew gain the confidence the people so heavily that after the first defeats in the Second Punic War (219 -201), was entrusted again, unfortunately, the direction of the army on campaign. Flaminio recalls, for some features, to Appius Claudius. Like him, also tended to get to Rome very strong position.
Enlarged the Roman territory by establishing large masses live in the lands conquered the Celts in the region of Bononia (Bologna), and as censor took care to build a large military road that still bears his name (Via Flaminia, from Rome to Rimini) and linking the capital with the territories seized from the Celts. In Rome the Tiber beautified the neighborhood, inhabited by poor people, raising great buildings.
In regard to political, to attribute to Flaminio, in all likelihood, the transformation of the order of centuries, according to which they were formed not on the basis of all citizens, but on that of the tribes . Each tribe (district) did, since then, 10 centuries, ie two for each category of landowners. Although, as it seems, there was complete equality of suffrage between the various categories, it is true that the first class no longer had a majority, even joining with the 18 centuries of knights. Moreover, 8 urban centuries were now added to the first class, and weakening even more the party of big landowners. In contrast to Appius Claudius, Flaminio is a trait typical of demagogic ambition, which reveals, above all, by some inconsistencies that make it too submissive to the least evolved of the masses. This explains the fact that the freedmen again distributed only among the urban tribes.
As noted, Fabio reactionary measures Rullianus not last long, but on the other hand, Flaminio sacrificed to the petty bourgeoisie, narrow horizons, the most important element in the cultural development of Rome. It supported the proposition meaningless, but yet victorious, a tribune, which prohibited senators possession of merchant ships. Even leaving aside the fact that the law could be easily circumvented, as actually happened, it robustecía caste consciousness of the Senate, reducing it to a unilateral representation of agrarian interests. Violation of this law essentially contributed to the expansion of Roman power in the world: the overseas business of the Roman senators, although handled in most cases by surrogates, have been more than once powerful lever for large political firms. It can not therefore astonishing that Flaminio has deserved for their actions hatred of the upper classes. Few figures were distorted by historiography as rabidly conservative as Flaminio.
No comments:
Post a Comment