Posted by
Prysson on Monday, October 02, 2006 8:27:47 AM
One of my pet peeves is when people try to draw comparisons with the fall of the Roman Empire and the current political climate in America today. I would feel embarrassed for the persons display of historical ignorance if it weren’t so annoying to see someone eagerly predicting the downfall of my nation on bogus claims and ludicrous comparisons. Robert Harris, a novelist, is the latest person to attempt such nonsense.
Robert Harris may write novel’s about ancient Rome but either his knowledge of history is somewhat lacking or else he, like every other liberal, is willing to distort historical facts to try and make some questionable case. I suspect the later.
Here is the gist of his argument
In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world's only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome's port at Osti"" was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But an event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
The idea that the pirate attack on Osti" set in motion the events that lead to the destruction of the Roman republic is utterly and completely absurd. The problems inherent in the Roman system began being highlighted some 50 years earlier when the brothers Gracchi beginning with Tiberius and ending with Gaius attempted to reform the Roman system that was denuding Rome and Italy of there rural land owners. The Roman republic had them killed for having the temerity to question the system and attempt to upset the applecart. It was of course a bit more complicated than that but even that in it simple form is far more accurate than the drivel proposed by Robert Harris.
Oh to be sure the attack on Osti" happened as did the Lex Gabinia, but these acts were little more than footnote in the larger movement that was occurring and had been occurring since the Brothers Gracchi. The real problem with the Roman Republic wasn’t military adventurism. It was an insular and arrogant governing class that cared more for its privileges and the maintenance of their corrupt system then they did for decent government. The utter mismanagement of the Republic led to massive social and political instability that allowed people like Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla to rise in power and place themselves in command of armies whose loyalty by virtue of the Senates penury towards their well being made them more loyal to their commanders than they were to Rome.
Long before Pompey’s rise to greatness giants like Sulla had already so badly damaged the cause of the Roman republic that it was beyond saving. It simply did not have the institutional cohesiveness to continue under the pressure of the requirements of its growing empire. Sulla’s dictatorship and reign of terror where powerful people simply “disappeared.” was far more damaging to the strength of the republic and the long term prospects of the system than granting a mandate to Pompey to eliminate pirates. Such a military command as granted to Pompey while certainly contrary to Roman tradition was no more a violation of roman tradition than Gaius Marius’s seven Consulships decades before. But then that was have the problem. The republic was mostly run by tradition rather than documented powers of a written constitution.
Likewise in the modern context of far greater threat to the stability of our own republic is the venal corruption of those in power. Once again if any comparison should be drawn it should be that of governmental malfeasance due to self serving individuals in power more interested in the maintenance of that power than they are in doing what is good and right for the republic. Our own system is in no threat of military generals with troop more loyal to them than to the state marching on the capital and setting them selves up as dictator in the model of Sulla or Ceasar. I won’t say such a threat could never occur in the future. Indeed it could, but until the system itself failed, as it did in Rome. I could certainly see such a situation arise if the terrorists were to ever succeed in wrecking nuclear devastation on a number of American cities, but such an occurance is far more likely to occur by refusing to confront and fight the enemy than by fighting them.
The “military adventurism” Mr. Harris warns about was hardly the downfall of Rome. Indeed Rome elevated itself to greatness through such “adventures” and maintained that greatness for centuries after the Lex Gabinia. It was the self serving arrogance of the generals upon their return and a system utterly incapable of containing their ambition through its own corruption and greed that led to the destruction of the Republic. Rome itself I should add long survived the republic.
Robert Harris either needs to return to the history texts and do a bit more studying…or as I actually suspect he should cease trying to twist historical truths to support his vacuous political anti-Americanism.
Footnote. ..I apologize for an intentionall mispell in the case of Osti" Townhall's word checker that looks for foul language for some reason has identified the name of this Roman town as innapropriate. For the correct spelling of teh town simply substitute an "a" for the ".