Tuesday 24 October 2023

Thinking About The Roman Empire.

Template For Masculine Politics: It is as well, then, that, all over the Western World, young men are thinking about Rome. Because, if ever there was time to “unleash hell” on the decrepit, the corrupt, and the criminally incompetent, then that time is now. For, make no mistake, all across the rest of the world, there is no shortage of young men thinking about the Barbarians.

WHY ARE MEN always thinking about the Roman Empire? Women, baffled by their partner’s quickening heart-rate when confronted with images of disciplined legionaries preparing to “unleash hell”, or worried by the Caesar-like poses they catch them striking in front of the bedroom mirror, have turned to their sisters on Tik-Tok for answers. Predictably, it was men who responded. The conclusion of the male commentariat? Men think about the Roman Empire a lot because the Roman Empire still contributes such a lot to what it means to be a man.

But, Rome retains its relevance for another reason, one only partially bound up with masculinity. Rome provides the template for empire: a template so powerful that we have been surrounded by its symbols for centuries. From the Dark Ages, when Charlemagne received the title of Holy Roman Emperor from the Pope; to the Consuls of the French Republic and, after them, the Emperor Napoleon; to the fasces that can still be seen adorning the United States House of Representatives and Lincoln’s memorial throne; to the classical colonnade of our own Parliament Buildings in Wellington: the legacy of Rome is ubiquitous.

The simple truth about Rome’s persistence of vision is that the ideas, the institutions, and the leaders that nourished it continue to inspire and guide our own. The way we think about politics: our curious bifurcation of means and ends; the way we honour the spirit of the Laws, even as our leaders flout the reality; the way we seek peace by preparing for war; all this is as Roman as “Hail Caesar”.

So, too, the notion that, to a favoured people, God (or, the Gods) might promise “empire without limit”. There are still numerous New Zealanders who recall hearing their parents talk about “the British Empire, upon which the sun never sets”. To this very day, Americans still celebrate in song a continental republic stretching from “sea to shining sea”.

So, Rome lives, and men of all ages still thrill to its unalloyed celebration of power. Ninety years ago, Nazi stormtroopers marched beneath devices self-consciously modelled on the eagle standards of the Roman legions. “Hail Hitler” they cried, as lustily as the men of Rome’s Thirteenth Legion had shouted “Hail Caesar!”, offering their leader the same stiff-armed Roman salute. Certainly, the movie director Ridley Scott had as little difficulty as Joseph Goebbels in mixing valour and violence into a thrilling, if extremely dangerous, recapitulation of Rome’s political imperatives. “Gladiator” is fascism in sandals.

Rome’s shadow is visible even in today’s headlines. It is said that the Roman senator, Cato, ended every speech with the same sentence: Ceterum (autem) censeo Carthaginem esse delendam [Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed.] When it came to which great city-state should command the Mediterranean basin –  Carthage or Rome – there could be only one. Clearly, the Israeli state and Hamas have arrived at the same conclusion. Like Cato, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems hell-bent on destroying his mortal enemies. When Carthage finally fell, the Romans left not one stone standing upon another. The Israeli’s seem determined to leave Gaza in the same state.

Confronted with the imminent demise of his people, the Roman historian Tacitus has the ancient Briton, Calgacus, say of his conquerors: ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant – they make a desert and call it peace. We must earnestly hope that Tacitus’s words do not supply Gaza with its epitaph.

Equally relevant to the headlines of the 2020s is Rome’s bloody transition from republic to empire.

Very few people living today understand that Julius Caesar, the man who made the Roman Republic’s fall inevitable, was what most of us would call a socialist. Though a patrician (aristocrat) by birth, Caesar saw in the Roman Senate little more than a corrupt body of elite oppressors of the plebs (the ordinary people).

Attempting to protect the plebs from the patricians was, however, a risky enterprise. Caesar had before him the fate of the Gracchi brothers (think of the Kennedy brothers in togas) whose lack of a sufficiently large body of armed men to protect their reformist agenda resulted in both of them being assassinated.

Caesar’s success as a political leader was founded squarely on Rome’s legions and the money they allowed him to amass. By the time the patricians became desperate enough to kill him, Caesar had made sure that the corrupt, elite-driven Roman Republic was beyond saving. His adopted heir and protégé, Octavian, would become Rome’s first emperor – Augustus.

It is very difficult to look upon the corruption and dysfunction of the present American Republic without recalling the moral and social disintegration of the Roman Republic. (The constitutional inspiration, incidentally, which guided the USA’s founding fathers.)

Like the young Roman Republic, the young United States would acquire its own version of empire and, by virtue of its military and economic strength, emerge as the master of its world. As is so often the case, however, the vigour and vitality of a young republic fades. Wealth substitutes for glory. Republican virtue becomes a memory. Unity dissolves. The republic falls into the hands of men with too much money and too many years.

The question upon which the fate of the world now turns is whether or not the American Republic, still rich, still immensely powerful, can rise above the rancour and corruption into which it has fallen. Caesar was murdered by men who clung to a Roman republican constitution that no longer worked. It had become a threadbare veil, no longer capable of hiding – let alone restraining – the naked ambition of ruthless political and military leaders eager to replace it with something more rational – and less restrictive.

There are many who would argue that the United States is not that far removed from the circumstances which led to the fall of the Roman Republic. America’s enemies would appear to be better students of history than either the Democratic or Republican parties. Profound challenges to American hegemony in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East can hardly be faced down by a nation that cannot even elect a Speaker of the House of Representatives – let alone pass a budget! Not even Rome, in all its long history, was able to produce a cavalcade of clowns to match the current American spectacle.

That the USA is presided over by a man in his 80s speaks eloquently of the USA’s predicament. Every day, it’s sclerotic institutions make it clear that America is no longer a country for young men. America desperately needs what Rome, in extremis, always seemed to find: a vigorous political general, with a plan in his mind – and loyal legions at his back.

It is as well, then, that, all over the Western World, young men are thinking about Rome. Because, if ever there was time to “unleash hell” on the decrepit, the corrupt, and the criminally incompetent, then that time is now. For, make no mistake, all across the rest of the world, there is no shortage of young men thinking about the Barbarians.


This essay was originally posted on the Interest.co.nz website on Monday, 23 October 2023.

8 comments:

Guerilla Surgeon said...

There's food for thought here. But I'm not sure that Rome is a particularly good comparison – with the US or with Western society in general. The Roman Empire existed to funnel funds back to the centre. They were completely unashamed about this, and their methods of tax gathering led to open corruption, even under the Republic. Caesar made a fortune in Gaul under the Republic remember. And his contemporaries made similar or even better fortunes in other provinces. I don't really think we should judge them by our standards though.

I'm also not at all sure that the US has really changed as much as you seem to think. It's not nearly as much a gerontocracy as China for instance, and it's only recently that we have 2 presidential candidates well over 70.
I think what has changed is that certain elements of the Republican Party (and one or 2 on the Democrat side) are more interested in chaos/publicity/making money than actually governing. After all it was the Republicans that ensured the demise of their speaker. Although of course they are blaming the Democrats simply because they didn't do the Republicans' job and save what's his face.

And while this chaotic group might be a minority, the rest of them are cowed because they're afraid of being primaried if they go against the nutty maga mob. Or for that matter beholden to dark money. There's far too much money washing around in the US electoral system – some people seem to spend more time raising money than actual governing. And I don't think that's a great deal to do with their age.

The US is hampered by a written constitution from the 18th century which is an object of veneration for the extreme right as long as it suits them. They're happy with the Second Amendment for instance but not too keen on separation of church and state at the moment. Not helped by a corrupt and activist Supreme Court. I'm not really keen on unelected people making policy, but it seems to happen even in New Zealand these days.
Even Biden though, who has revitalised their economy to very little applause, is making noises about American world "leadership". If only we could get by without great powers leading us eh? Adam Tooze has a great piece on that on substack.

"America desperately needs what Rome, in extremis, always seemed to find: a vigorous political general, with a plan in his mind – and loyal legions at his back."

I'm assuming this is metaphorical – you should be ashamed if you are suggesting they need another Smedley Butler. We could all do with a few politicians with vision. Labour's lost it, National hasn't really had one since their horrific vision in the 1990s, I guess we're left with the Greens and the Maori party.

In the US really the only people with vision are those on the left of the Democrats, such as Sanders – obviously too old now, Ocasio - Cortez and Katie Porter – both of whom are bright, hard-working, and manage to easily show up some of the older timeservers for what they are. Ocasio -Cortez might be a little young, but one or two of my US Internet acquaintances have mentioned a bright future for Porter.

DS said...

Very few people living today understand that Julius Caesar, the man who made the Roman Republic’s fall inevitable, was what most of us would call a socialist. Though a patrician (aristocrat) by birth, Caesar saw in the Roman Senate little more than a corrupt body of elite oppressors of the plebs (the ordinary people).

Caesar was no socialist. Dude was fundamentally non-ideological beyond Pursuit of Power, and harnessing the plebs against the elites was just part of a self-serving agenda. Not that his opponents were any better, of course - Caesar was just the culmination of an on-going process, going back to Marius and Sulla, whereby the Blokes with the Armies realised that they held the real power.

Anonymous said...

The comment of young men thinking of Barbarians rings true in myself.

No matter how hard or long I work, I only see my place in our society fall further behind. My boss and landlord are entitled to a greater and greater share of the wealth I produce. And the country has just voted for more of the same.

The common answers to these concerns is either work harder than they claim to have had (to justify keeping what they have and taking more off you), or to move (cause fuck off, we don't want ya.)

It's easy to feel like you don't belong, or if it's worth keeping on.

There's three forms of communication that can convince your opposition: debate, bribery, and violence.

The youth aren't listened to, have had no chance to accumulate anything worth loosing, and have no hope it's going to get any better.

Maybe it's worth taking a few of the bastards with ya?

Trev1 said...

I studied both Latin and Greek, and I read about Ancient History endlessly. Personally I have always preferred the Greeks who gave us democracy, drama, philosophy and more besides. The Romans leave me cold, except for their magnificent roads and water engineering. Wellington would do well to be invaded by a Roman legion or two.

Brendan McNeill said...

“Like Cato, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems hell-bent on destroying his mortal enemies.”

Chris, Israel is not without its faults, but unlike Hamas it is not a barbaric terrorist organisation. It’s right to a homeland in its present geography dates back three thousand years, and has been endorsed in the early 20th century by none other than the League of Nations, the pre-cursor to the UN. The only dissenters were (surprise surprise) the surrounding Muslim nations who are pathologically opposed to Jews living in any geography but Israel in particular.

Check out the Hamas founding charter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter#:~:text=The%20Hamas%20Covenant%20or%20Hamas,(the%20Islamic%20Resistance%20Movement).

There was a time (not so long ago) when any group or nation state waged war on another nation they risked either success, or total annihilation. Here in the 21st century interventions by the UN and other global entities are designed to dial back the response of Israel to Muslim / Hamas aggression which only reduces the price Hamas have to pay for their agression. This is the primary reason that Israel is once again having to respond to terrorist acts on their soil.

This time they will take the 18th century approach and completely eliminate the source of aggression on their borders. The UN will complain and eventually even their allies will get queasy, but this sadly is the price both sides have to pay for lasting peace. As an aside, Hamas have no interest in a two state solution. It is a western fiction.

For an historical perspective on the nation of Israel, its claims to its present territory and its relation to Islam I highly recommend these three lectures by Sydney academic, theologian and Islamic scholar Mark Durie, which were recorded in 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZTAeMnv2-WBoVbtU9QBLrNBaRm7B3u9G

ChrisH said...

The other source of fascination, albeit more to historians, is how it all fell apart, at least in the West (Constantinople staggering on till 1453 and even the Ottoman Sultan, who ruled an area essentially the same as that of the Eastern Roman Empire for most of Ottoman history, calling himself Kayser-i-Rûm thereafter, so that it could be argued that that the Eastern Roman Empire, at least, did not breathe its very last as an entity self-consciously ruled from Constantinople until the WWI era.) But certainly in the West, things imploded more unambiguously, Kenneth Clark famously claiming that the Western Romans ran out of "confidence," as if their empire died of postmodernism. Which is, at least, one way of looking at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNQRqJitqNI. (I rather suspect that the young men who admire Rome aren't into postmodernism.)

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Israel has its faults? Or that's a bit of an admission from you Brendan. And these faults go back at least 3700 years to the massacre of the Canaanites ordered by your God in order to give the Jews the land of milk and honey they were apparently entitled to. Unfortunately of course the Canaanites DNA has been found in people in Lebanon. As they go back even further than your 3000 years perhaps they are entitled to settle in Israel as well?

Now Hamas is a terrorist group, as are the illegal settlers on the West Bank. It would be nice if some of you Zionists admitted to this.

But even so if we going to talk about charters, how about a look at the Likud charter. I'll save you the bother Brendan because I guarantee you wouldn't be bothered to look it up but it says this:
"between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
And this:
“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

I highly recommend you read the Israeli historian Benny Morris – at least his pre-death threats thesis – that Israel never intended to honour the League of Nations mandate, that Israeli troops started ethnic cleansing of Arab villages before the declaration of statehood, and that Palestinian Arabs were massacred in order to hasten their exodus from what became Israel, never to be allowed back.

As a capitalist Brendan I would have expected you to at least honour the concept of private property which was expropriated by the Israeli state. Sarcasm in case you didn't realise. As some sort of Christian Dominionist – I doubt you would bother with that. 😇

Kumara Republic said...

The Roman Empire is a cautionary tale, but some testosterone-overdosed types think it's a manifesto.