Discussion 8

1

PS 361 – Classical Political Thought

Dr. Philipp Kneis

M I C R O - L E C T U R E 8 :

T H E L E G A C Y O F C L A S S I C A L P O L I T I C A L T H O U G H T

When it comes to questions of why the Roman Empire fell, or became transformed, it is too easy to

just look at migrations and invasions. Rome had been able to withstand such pressures for a very

long time, and had been able to survive much more formidable enemies than German refugees, or

even the Arab Conquest. A constant foe was faced in the east, by the Parthian and Persian empires,

but even there, lost battles were oftentimes a result of Roman military hubris and arrogance.

Carthage had posed much more of an existential threat to the Republic than any warlord could

realistically have posed.

If we take the time from the end of the Second Punic War in 201 BC until 395, the date where the

separation between West and East becomes tangible, we are talking about roughly 600 years of

Roman dominance of the entire Mediterranean. This is no easy feat. If we look at the maximum

duration of Roman rule from the founding of Rome in 753 BC to the fall of Constantinople in 1453,

we are speaking about approximately 2200 years. If we take into account the Holy Roman Empire as

a legitimate imperial successor, defeated by Napoleon in 1806, we arrive at almost 2560 years ab

urbe condita, since the founding of the City of Rome.

The answer to why originally successful and stable Empires fall almost always has to do with

domestic social, political and economic problems that continue to not be solved or addressed

successfully. Given the long duration of Roman rule, whichever date you choose to pick, the question

that is really interesting is not how Rome fell, but how it could have possibly lasted that long. Possible

contenders would be China, Ancient Egypt, maybe Persia – but we are talking about different

geographies, scopes, and all of these have had their periods of fragmentation as well. Modern empires

have no reason to look at ancient cultures with a sense of superiority. The largest empire in history,

the British Empire, lasted – in the most generous interpretation – 394 years from the union between

England and Scotland in 1603 until the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997.

Factors in the fall of Rome that are typically underestimated are of an environmental and social

nature. Deforestation in a fragile environment, harbor siltation, soil degradation, pollution with

heavy metals, lead pollution of drinking water are all factors that have contributed to the decline of

Roman power. Failures to include all social classes in the political process led to real and perceived

disenfranchisement and a disillusioned, oftentimes dispossessed, populations. Many tenant farmers,

so-called coloni, were forbidden from leaving their land in 332, due to a labor shortage with the

declining supply of slaves (due to a lack of war, but also due to Christianization). This can be seen as

the beginning of serfdom, a form of unfreedom that should really be seen as a form of slavery. I would

argue that the difference between serfdom and slavery is merely technical, and the differentiation

between the two is rather euphemistic. Serfdom disappears in different countries at different times,

2

in England formally in 1574, and in France formally in 1789 with the Revolution. German states

follow suit, partially under pressure from Napoleon, around 1815. Russian serfdom ended in 1861.

If the population is not politically invested in the state, this bodes ill for the continued existence of

the community. Frequently, Roman citizens felt there were more opportunities by switching loyalties

to German warlords, especially once Roman willingness and ability to provide military support

declined. Corrupt provincial officials also always play a role in shifting allegiances. Lastly, imperial

cohesion came at the price of the suppression of local cultures, languages and traditions.

A famous motif, already mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, but later also by Edward Gibbon, was

that of Roman moral decline and presumed decadence. Such criticisms may reveal more about their

authors’ puritanical tendencies than about the society itself, but they have been successful as

arguments nevertheless. We really do not know whether Nero indeed played his fiddle while Rome

burnt (he probably did not), but it sounds good to audiences who want to see the empire discredited.

We don’t know whether Tiberius was immoral, Caligula a pig, Commodus a monster, Claudius

incompetent, Marcus Aurelius a saint, or Julius Caesar a visionary martyr. But it makes for great

literature and pop culture. If you have not watched I, Claudius, or HBO’s Rome, or Gladiator, or The

Fall of the Roman Empire, you probably should, but you also should not expect them to be

documentaries. No human culture is devoid of hedonistic elements; but they typically do not end

empires other than in the imaginations of audiences seeking sensationalist tabloid-style

entertainment.

Theories of imperial overstretch, of a decline of good governance, of the increased corruption of

officials, of concrete mismanagement, and of failures to secure lasting food supplies – just to name a

few examples that are more concrete – might address the problem much better. The Roman

population and its officials were also frequently unable to integrate their immigrants. The death of

emperor Valens may just have been due to a feeling of alienation and disenfranchisement by the

Ostrogoth immigrants in Thrace. Denouncing other peoples as “barbarians” does typically not endear

them to share your perspective.

Some of the social problems of the empire have inspired later theorists. Spartacus and his slave revolt

were seen as a great inspiration to Marxist and Communist thinkers. The Roman Revolution, the time

period from the social reforms of the Gracchi brothers until the victory of Octavian and the

establishment of the empire, was an inspiration to Theodor Mommsen, whose Roman History was

told in the context of the foundation of the 2nd German Empire by Wilhelm I. and Bismarck. In their

ideological fight against Napoleon, Nationalists in the 19th century delighted in identifying with the

fights of Germanic tribal leaders such as Arminius against the Roman Empire. Machiavelli’s Il Principe

delivered a blueprint for denouncing politicians seen as tyrants, from Shakespeare’s Macbeth to

Richard III, to today’s House of Cards. We know Caesar’s last words, “Et tu, Brute” – “You too, Brutus”

– from Shakespeare, and Shakespeare only.

The Roman Empire has also inspired other empires, whether they were subscribing to the theory of

translatio imperii or not. Charlemagne, who himself is honored by the European Union as the founder

of Europe, but also Napoleon, the Russian Czars, the French, British and German Empires, the United

States, the Italian Fascists, the National Socialists or Nazis, all have seen their empire in some way

related to Rome and its alleged mission to civilize the world – yet ironically, civilization is a modern

concept.

3

More directly, Roman Civil Law, the codex iuris civilis, issued by Justinian between 529-534, inspired

the Code Napoleon, and has been the basis, in full or in part, for legal systems across the world. The

UK and, largely, the US follow English Common Law instead.

Political thought from Antiquity and the Middle Ages is typically not received as it is, but transposed

to a different context, a different time, and used in a rather eclectic or piecemeal fashion. This may

explain how the same theory and history can appear to support apparently diametrically opposed

readings and movements.

Karl Popper, for instance, shows in his monumental The Free Society and Its Enemies how Plato can

be used to justify a totalitarian state, and we have seen already how a strict caste system can be based

on his ideas – yet we have also seen how the picture can appear much more complex when you take

possible double meanings into account.

As you have seen from the theoretical discussions so far, Classical Political Thought is not dead, and

neither is the search for interpreting its historical contexts. Despite the extensive readings that you

have been given so far, many topics have had to remain unexplored. The selection of texts below may

offer some further insights into the historical periods and their theories, especially as they connect

to later times up to today. Please read up to four of the texts, and share their central ideas with your

fellow students.

In conclusion, before you post your own research, let me come back to the opening of the class where

I mentioned that the Ancient World is a world that to some extent is alien to us. The syllabus opens

with L. P. Hartley’s line that “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” I hope

that in the process of taking this class, the past has become more familiar to you, and that you can use

this knowledge now to see connections between today’s political landscape and our common roots

thousands of years ago.

I hope this brief historical overview has been useful to you for situating the political theories

discussed in the readings. Thank you for listening.