The more he turned the misery of these, the more alive stirred in the crowd the feeling that she was the real sovereign people of Rome and to her alone, then, belonged by right to see those treasures away in pockets a small minority of wealthy and distinguished citizens. Only the state of war which had lasted for centuries, could prevent the masses to assert timely his claim on the part of the booty that rightfully belonged. The country had always been in danger, and in this situation the interests of the crowd usually are not felt. Also in Rome patriotic phrases with which the nobility disguised and concealed their economic policy class, moved by the masses, so that the social problem patiently spent last line second or foreign policy front.
But the great and decisive victories by which the North Africa and Greece they turned Roman provinces (146 d C), changed the situation. The world power of Rome and was not exposed to real and serious assaults: Germans, childbirth and the great Mithridates, king of Pontus (Asia Minor), could still threaten the farthest boundaries, but not the existence and position of the Roman world empire . Could now be put back on the table the social problem, and really, from this moment, one again became the focus of Roman history, as before imperialist policy. Set in motion, the stone could not stop, until she buried at the bottom of the cliff and the old chivalric magnificence Senate, paving Caesarism on democratic basis with well-ordered system of administration. The Roman Republic fell for not having solved the problem 'on society. From this point of view deserved such a fate. The aristocracy wanted here reap what democracy had sown. Following the predominance of the aristocratic interests - capitalist imperialist policy had changed politically popular policy of class, thus preventing also the development of democratic thought. When the global power of Rome was already a fact, the vast majority of people watching the play so well achieved by it, but was, at the same time, empty handed, hungry and homeless, full of envy of the few and happy rider, and, what was worse - also unable to use and administer such property in truly democratic sense.
The Romans - italic was, for all his past, an agricultural town. But, in what condition was now their main source of livelihood, agriculture? The most diverse motives had contributed no less than to ruin the free peasantry, which in earlier times had been the lifeblood of Italy. First it must be attributed to the great contradiction between the agricultural character of a people and imperialist policy. The cultivation of the land requires, more than any other work, the dedication of the owner, limiting the latter's gaze toward the distant horizon and makes it more conservative, while the policy of conquest is in some sense, a progressive idea, which presupposes a child drowned the Dais of origin and brings greater mobility in economic relations. Conquests policy also requires many benefits that an agricultural town in any case can not make if you want to remain true to his nature. The conquest need above all wars. While it was only attach to Italy, things could bear, being relatively easy to replace those who had been under arms longer than allowed by their economic conditions. But after the subjection of Italy, things became much worse. The state of war was almost permanent theater ever more distant, so that farmers often had to stay for years under arms, while its economy was entrusted to the wife and minor children. And the great wars in this regard were not worse than the guerrillas of mountain populations, which, moreover, did not throw even notable gains. Thus, to subdue the Celtic races - Iberian in Spain, thousands of peasants had to be italics under arms for six years (138 - 133, destruction of Numancia), only because his replacement would have cost too much money, what the rulers in Rome considered as a waste. And note that this happened a few years after the "Iron Syriac, which contributed to the cashier of the State nearly 70 million gold marks only the contribution of war!
It is understood that wreaked havoc war campaigns particularly in the agricultural class. The secondary Punic war had destroyed, will think, half of all Roman citizens. If the property lost its owner, was-had the difficult problem of resolving the issue. If there were sons, they should go to 18 years in the army, to march to one of the distant theaters of war. Missing children, it was inevitable that the family alienating its possession, as buyers could, of course, present only those who possessed capital. By the way, have not been paid very high prices. As the sale was imposed by necessity, the buyer dictates the price, that competition could not raise much, because, given the small size of the plots, they sought to purchase only the nearest neighbors. This was the most propitious time for the creation of large sets of land, estates.
Even if the farmer could return safely from war, after an absence of several years, only rarely was able to resist the offer of large landowners. The war had demoralized the diligent nature of the peasant. Sense of ownership, tenacious and strong attachment to the possession, intimate moral obligation to do everything for his property that allowed their forces: these qualities so strongly pronounced in the nature of the Roman peasant, should loosen seriously, since as a warrior, sword in hand, had looted in many parts of the farms, destroyed crops, killed peasants and their families, or carried them all to slavery. Indifference and contempt for the possession of peaceful and productive work were increasingly crystallized in his mind, since the victorious warrior no longer liked their farming glebe, which, however, could be performed equally well by the enemy defeated and scorned. For the peasant defensive war is undoubtedly the appropriate item, the best soldier, not only the most courageous in defending his land, but also the most disciplined and the most bold, however, is not fit for wars of conquest, in which it acts against their will or sacrificing its rural nature. So with the peasantry italics. The peasants were changed into professional soldiers, that even after completion of his years of military service, preferred, if anyone required it, stay voluntarily in the military and seek booty, instead of starting with a living working hard to land . If the termination of his military career I was also provided, by way of pension, a property, it was always larger than that of a small farmer italic, but it happened that the hall was rather frequently unable to retain that possession methodical work.
For its part, the rich were less prone to military service and sought to rid themselves, if possible, that weight. Since the state was run essentially as they wish, for exemption from that requirement was not difficult. Following the offer of small farmers, who had lost their land, the armies kept always complete their ranks, and these hordes, accustomed to war, were, though fierce, a very handy tool in the hands of the generals, so the gradual transformation of the army found no serious resistance from any quarter. With the demise of the old and free peasant class also disappeared the old trinity of peasant, citizen and soldier.
But what did it say on this point the Roman constitution? The duty of a Roman citizen to serve war remained unchanged, but was an untenable situation that some citizens simply ignore that requirement, flouting of existing law, while the other part, which hoped to profit satisfied with its obligations as set out above. But this came more than a defect in the constitution that the arbitrary will of men. Rome had continued to maintain its agricultural character formation, although in the course of centuries social conditions had changed considerably and the new situation could not adjust to the old ways. With the militia was the same with the government. Here too, the Assembly remained popular as before, the only body for all the most important measures, especially for elections and legislation. But this was fine while the State's territory was limited and visible, even if it might all districts of the country could be represented in relatively uniform in the voting. But now the government was at the discretion of a popular vote exercised by a crowd that flocked and circumstantially in Rome, who, finding themselves without work, without obligation and without any bond with the mother, could do more to sell his vote in for all the ambitious and intriguing.
Thought himself to correct the wrong by giving the Senate, not by constitutional law, but by custom, all decisions, except those matters that required the deliberations of the Assembly expresses popular. Just as the Senate was changed from advisory corporation governing power, the people's army had been transformed under the pressure of actual conditions at a mercenary army. It's just a remnant of the old Roman conservatism that external forms remain intact, although the objective conditions have changed since long ago, and we'd rather take into account the new situation or even rocky road by an open violation of law, before changing to recognize the old sacred ways.
The state of war, with its ever-growing recruitment and embracing anew the agricultural class, was the main cause of regression and, finally, the ruin of small farmers. But other circumstances added more. Agriculture had ceased to be a really rewarding source of income. The newly conquered territories, so-called provinces, were much more productive than Rome and Italy. Especially Sicily became the breadbasket of the state, so that the supply of the army and the major cities were covered almost exclusively on cereals from areas outside Italy. For the sale of its products the peasant could count only on the domestic market in the immediate vicinity of its estate and housing, and here also could compete with the offerings of the large landowner, who had reserved this market, having had to leave more helpful-the military and big cities for foreign grain. The large rural estate could produce much cheaper than the small, because the victorious advance of Roma abroad and the knowledge of more advanced farming methods of the Carthaginians, Greeks and former model state, Egypt, had resulted a profound change in the factors of production, especially by the introduction of extensive culture, the slave economy, which presents in all its harshness the contrast between private enterprise and great people.
Slavery and its use in agriculture were in Rome known since ancient times. More Mean-while Rome still had not the means to intervene successfully in the global market, while their slaves were collected between Italic prisoners of war, the Roman slave economy that aspect was not horrifying as the general imagination was characteristic of that exploitation . Until this time the slaves were not even many. Not yet felt the need for many foreign forces to rid the soil the amount of products needed to supply the population d, for every Roman thought of his duty to collaborate to this work with energy. So few were reduced to the status of slaves. And those few were generally used as servants and shepherds in rural or affluent people, those who had been paying for them the sale price. The treatment used on them should differ little from that seen towards the slaves free. But in this relationship is concealed the germ of a great economic transformation - social. The help that a few slaves paid to the owner, with no other purpose for their work than the more modest livelihood, assured one an advantage over those who did not own slaves, that advantage, pursued with the spirit of self-consequence of the Romans, was lead to the contrasts and antitheses more strident. And the occasion was presented very conducive to that effect, because due to the increasing wealth of Roman arms were thrown in the Roman market large numbers of prisoners of war completely different races, particularly in regions not italicized in addition, capital accumulated in few hands allowed the purchase of human forces also in the great slave markets of the East. With the help of these new labor force large landowners could abandon the old system of rent and cultivate their possessions on their own. A tenant always wanted to live according to their social position of Roman citizen wanted to marry, to support his wife and children and also leave something as an inheritance, which is why the lease should not be too high. Instead, the slaves, who did not take into account these views, the landowner sought higher profits than the moderate amount of lease, for which recovery was not, moreover, to proceed very carefully, do not want to push the tenant to the field of political opponents. In short, the great Roman landowners had reason to cheer the new economic system which had been taught mainly from Sicily, and he joined without scruple.
But the extensive system of culture revenge. The area was depopulated, ie the free peasant population increasingly diminished, and since, as noted above, the main markets for cereals-the major cities and the army were supplied with grain cheaper for extraitálicas regions, the very large agricultural estate no longer offered adequate profits, so it was gradually displaced by livestock, lower cost and notoriously demanding part of the slaves less diligence and ability. Mainly in mountain regions was verified that even a modest cattle ranching was more profitable than a good farming. From the point, of view of individual economy that is fair, but it is false from the overall economy. An individual may, surely, by the cheapness of the estate, take sizeable pasture rather than equal extent of land cultivated. But the latter draws its sustenance an increased number of tillers. Most individuals feel no such scruples never in these cases would have to intervene to ensure the factor called general welfare, the state. Also, fruit growing, particularly the vine and the olive tree, a utility owner gave the most abundant, contributing to a limitation growing agriculture. "The estates ruined Italy."
From the foregoing that all internal evolution, which was accompanied as a natural phenomenon of Rome's rise to world power, pushing for the elimination of early rural character of the people. Not lacking, indeed, repeated attempts to curb this trend by artificial means, but could not provide lasting results, because they tended always to remove only the external effects and not the root of evil. Had to transform the whole basis of the state. Unilateral Agriculture may be suitable for a small state, until I have my claims that the safe and peaceful possession of their lands and to renounce the whole to a higher culture. But more is needed in the first of the division of labor, and it was always frustrated by attempts to reform. You could, of course, remedy the situation, trying to force, as did some well-meaning legislators, large landowners to occupy, along with their herds of slaves, also a number of free workers. Such a law was inapplicable. The owner wanted to avoid increased spending derivante that provision, and the free worker did not like the same job as that of the slaves so deeply despised by him. It might have been stated here a legal contract of work, but then nobody thought of that. Provisions, such as the above, and also the creation of new small farms, were no more than palliatives, which attenuate the disease temporarily, but never produce real sanitation.
But where are emptied into the thousands and thousands of peasant stock broken? If they did not want to the call of a general in search of mercenaries, had no choice but to go to the capital, Rome. Other parts of the state territory offered only a few seats and batteries. These provincial towns, villages, camps, etc.., Were in substance rather than large villages, which constitute the lifeblood of agriculture. In the capital, which was increasingly taking on the traits of a great cultural center at the growing crowd of employees, top bureaucrats and gentlemen, peasants were ruined in the early days to find some occupation. As usual, his example had many imitators, until finally the capital and could not give space and work opportunities to those people, otherwise unproductive. Thus arose an urban proletariat of the worst sort, but as a political factor was becoming extremely important.
That crowd was going to pour into Rome, was not only a proletariat and devoid of idle assets, a lot of people hungry, cold and homeless, but at the same time, the national sovereignty of the Roman world, that his vote decided the destiny of other peoples and allocated lucrative offices and dignities, the goal of the wishes of every member of the privileged strata. The crowd thus becomes a factor that potentates must take into account much more wisely when it spread in the campaign, the daily tasks performed in rural areas. Roman aristocrats soon realized the advantage he could derive from the use of that factor in the struggle for the conquest of the highest tribunals: the consulate and the Pretura. The ancient institution of the customers offered an excellent tool to ensure that new ally. Patron and client no longer needed to be in the mutual relationship of landlord and tenant, as in ancient times, which does not exclude that also in later times the previous close of possessions or manumission have often been the foundation of the relationship customer. The clientele became more mobile now. The employer no longer provided work for his protege in the form of a parcel of land, but gave him the most necessary of life (food, clothing, money also), without consideration of work, subject only to exercise their rights policy as directed by the employer. These mutual obligations need not, of course, any legal validity, but both sides were to each other too intimately involved to give rise to mutual mistrust. The benefits to customers were certainly high, but given the frugality of the south, were sufficient to cover the essentials and especially to satisfy hunger. In regard to housing and clothing, the demands were proportionally more modest.
According to the Roman conception of morality, this was not any corruption. Political activity, according to the concept of the time, was nothing more than the pursuit of personal interest, so customers, generally accepted and permissible, seemed like a natural relationship between large and small, rich and poor. The employer claimed success with their essential sustenance to the many small stocks that he trusted, so required a careful political sense where possible to promote their plans. But the proletariat entries were not limited to employer subsidies. Applicants rather ambitious or greedy should spend more if they wanted to get the Senate seat posts and even more profitable, governors of provinces, in later times reserved for consuls and magistrates made redundant.
Here it was necessary to use other means that the clientele, which stretched in the best of a couple dozen individuals. If the political career of a Roman aristocrat had come to a conclusion honorary and lucrative, corruption was almost indispensable.
The number of seats available was, in relation to the candidates, very small. Although competition was restricted to some degree by the laws on minimum age and intervals re-election, were, however, enough candidates so that the electoral struggle often degenerated into a competition for the favor of the proletariat, while between rivals only if there were differences of policy. It is often attempted legal action against such corruption, but never were effective, and this because its implementation was entrusted to people who had their positions itself to such manipulations.
Great Facilities, grain deals, rental waivers and splendid sets to satisfy the instinct for fun, were the lever almost necessary in political elections. How wide spread reach that system, evidenced by numerous political process, initiated as a result of fraud committed through official channels or following the formation of partnerships, of course prohibited by law, for grabbing votes. These processes will be promoted, nóteselo well, especially within the party and for candidates trying unfortunate against rivals more fortunate as a last resort to extract the rich prize.
Thus the urban populace could certainly live. But it was a life of depravity and unworthy 'sad, without hope in a healthier future. Instead it was feared that increasing proletarianization and the claims imposed on candidates for public office, the numerical disproportion between giving and receiving, to have become increasingly heavy and that the aristocracy finally exhausted his strength, burying collapse prematurely in his Roman magnificence.
No comments:
Post a Comment